<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>
    <title>MIKE OLDFIELD - Reviews</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
    <meta name="Author" content="Fernando H. Canto" />
    <meta name="Keywords" content="Mike Oldfield, reviews, albums, Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge, Amarok, Ommadawn" />
    <link rel="stylesheet" title="Classic Blue" href="code/classic.css" />
    <link rel="alternate stylesheet" title="Plainish" href="code/plain.css" />
</head>

<body>

<h1>
    MIKE OLDFIELD
</h1>

<div class="quote">
    "Why does everyone hate me? I'm the best musician ever!"<br />

    <img alt="Mike Oldfield" src="images/oldfield.png" />
</div>

<div class="members">
    <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/games/create.html">South Park Create-A-Character</a>
</div>

<p class="albumList">
  <a href="#bells">Tubular Bells</a><br />
  <a href="#ridge">Hergest Ridge</a><br />
  <a href="#obells">The Orchestral Tubular Bells</a><br />
  <a href="#ommadawn">Ommadawn</a><br />
  <a href="#incantations">Incantations</a><br />
  <a href="#platinum">Platinum</a><br />
  <a href="#qe2">QE2</a><br />
  <a href="#out">Five Miles Out</a><br />
  <a href="#crises">Crises</a><br />
  <a href="#discovery">Discovery</a><br />
  <a href="#fields">The Killing Fields</a><br />
  <a href="#islands">Islands</a><br />
  <a href="#moving">Earth Moving</a><br />
  <a href="#amarok">Amarok</a><br />
  <a href="#open">Heaven's Open</a><br />
  <a href="#bells2">Tubular Bells II</a><br />
  <a href="#earth">The Songs Of Distant Earth</a><br />
  <a href="#voyager">Voyager</a><br />
  <a href="#bells3">Tubular Bells III</a><br />
  <a href="#guitars">Guitars</a><br />
  <a href="#bell">The Millennium Bell</a><br />
  <a href="#lunas">Tr3s Lunas</a><br />
  <a href="#lunas2">Tr3s Lunas II</a><br />
  <a href="#bells2003">Tubular Bells 2003</a><br />
</p>

<p>Reviewing obscure artists can be fun, sometimes. You know, you get to talk
about music that people aren't used to, and it can be a great writing
experience, and certain readers may be delighted to be introduced to new,
different music. But how's it reviewing an artist that's <em>both</em> obscure
and insanely popular? It's either <em>more</em> fun, or very annoying. I don't
know. You see, Mike Oldfield's case bothers me. It's one of those instances
where sudden, instant popularity backfired horribly on him. And why? Well, it's
a fairly complex case. Mike Oldfield was never a happy, satisfied person. Music
was his great emotional outlet, and his style derived mainly from folk music,
But that didn't make him either into some sort of Bob Dylan or some Nick Drake.
For one, he was once part of Kevin Ayers's band, The Whole World, playing bass.
And after he left, he set out to record a home demo of assorted musical ideas he
was having. He played several instruments, blocking the eraser head of the tape
recorder to create overdubs. And that tape was the embryo of one of the most
seminal, groundbreaking and revolutionary albums ever recorded: <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>.</p>

<p>I can especulate it all happened more or less as an accident. Mike met
producer Tom Newman, who instantly knew he had to produce that album somehow.
And Richard Branson was about to launch his own record label, Virgin. So, Mike
was both the perfect opportunity to test the technology of the recording studio
The Manor, <em>and</em> to launch Branson's label. The first side of the record
was recorded in <em>one week</em>, while the second side was recorded over the
period of nine months, in between recording sessions of other bands (including
Henry Cow and The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band). Mike recorded most instruments - from
grand piano to flageolet, including his favourite instrument, the guitar - and
the insane number of overdubs and tracks being mixed truly put the studio crew
and the technology at its very limit. The music defied genres and categories,
challenging the very essence of Progressive Rock, Folk, Jazz and Classical, and
the final result was a smashing success and built the entire foundation of
Branson's empire. The album was a dazzling hit in the UK, and its inclusion in
the soundtrack of Richard Friedkin's <em>The Exorcist</em> made the music
instantly memorable all over the world, especially in the USA.</p>

<p>But then, it all went wrong. Mike freaked out, refused to tour, and enclosed
himself in a cottage near Hergest Ridge. Richard Branson pressed him for another
album, and <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong> was panned by critics, while
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong> happily knocked it off the #1 spot in the UK.
Mike Oldfield's name slowly faded, <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> became a sort
of one-hit-wonder, and in the USA, the unforgettable piano line turned simply
into the tune from <em>The Exorcist</em>. Sad, no? Well, that's how life goes.
The happy thing is that Mike's carreer went on, firm and solid. The third LP,
<strong>Ommadawn</strong>, became a sort of classic. His single from the same
period, 'In Dulci Jubilo', is his secret hit, played in stores during Christmas
time. And his venture into mainstream and Pop territory as the 80's came by
yelded him more hits - 'Family Man' was a moderate success, and was covered by
Hall &amp; Oates in the US for even bigger success, and 'Moonlight Shadow'
became a well deserved classic, still played in radio stations, along with other
classics like 'Sultans Of Swing'.</p>

<p>But you see, his carreer is way too complex to discuss in an intro section!
Through his period in Virgin, he suffered pressure from all sides, all trying
to channel his creativity into something different than <em>his</em> preferred
style of music. The label largely ignored him and failed to promote his albums
decently - but it can be said that that motivated Mike to keep on trying harder,
and the big culmination of that was his biggest and most ambitious masterpiece
ever, <strong>Amarok</strong>. After his Virgin contract ended, he moved on to
Warner, and started to churn out endless "sequels" of <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>, New-Age doodles, Celtic music and Synthesizer music nonstop. And
so it goes. Everything Mike did is likeable to some extent, but <em>here</em>,
you will hear <em>my</em> very frank opinions. So, deal with it, Mike. I know
you're reading this, don't think you can fool me.</p>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail your ideas</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bells">Tubular Bells (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Choosing between part 1 and part 2 individually is not fun, okay?</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Tubular Bells, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Tubular Bells, part 2 ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>This is one of those records that just, simply <em>happen</em> - one of those phenomena that change the world of music with a simple wave of the hand. But I think the most mindblowing aspect of this record isn't just the immense impact it caused, and still causes more than 30 years later. It's just plainly hard to believe that this record is the debut record of a 19-year-old artist. Think about it: this record came out of <em>nowhere</em>. There were no precedents to this record at all. Of course Mike had lots of influences and places to draw inspiration from, but he didn't follow <em>any</em> trends whatsoever. I guess it takes a bit from Prog Rock, Folk and a few other genres, but the <em>way</em> it's executed, I just can't say the album is a mixture of those genres. It's like they collided at high speed and caused a Big Bang - and this album appeared. And who on Earth would ever <em>guess</em> that Mike would get this album released, and that it would sell millions? The album was rejected by a great amount of record labels before Branson released it on Virgin - and in fact, Mike turned down an offer of a hefty sum of money for putting lyrics on the album.</p>

<p>The truth is that, however unbelievable it is, it's easy to understand why this album came to be. You see, most bands out there start off shaping their music after some kind of "style". That's only natural. The thing is Mike simply went the opposite way and wrote whatever music came from <em>inside</em> him, and didn't shape after anything. It was either a very bold move or a very na&iuml;ve move, in a teenager way, that is. He had the luck to know men who truly believed in his music's power, and of course, to know the man that had enough vision, intelligence and GUTS to put out <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> on his label. And the world really needed music like this. Back in '73, Prog Rock was big, and "intelligent" music was still hip. But music that was intelligent <em>and</em> na&iuml;ve wasn't too common back then. Mike filled that gap with ease, and as a result, he created a monster - both a blessing and a curse to his carreer: blessing, of course, because <em>all</em> of his popularity is thanks to it, directly or indirectly; and curse because, well, Mike wasn't emotionally steady enough to take the popularity. And the Tubular Bell obssession haunted the public (what with the theme song being featured <em>everywhere</em>, even today), the critics (with the natural reaction of comparing the follow up <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong> with it) and Mike himself. The album is, in fact, something of a black mark on Mike's catalogue to fans. It's understandable: it outshines the <em>entire</em> Mike Oldfield catalogue, so it kind of justifies any bitterness towards it.</p>

<p>But the truth is, I don't agree with those fans. And why? Well, because, in my opinion, <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> <em>is</em> one of the greatest albums ever - and it took Mike Oldfield almost two decades to top it. Oh, yes, I know all the complaints against it; so much that I'll address them all here. Lessee:</p>

<p>Reason the first: <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is, technically, a poor album. What I mean here is, the first side of the album was recorded under pressure and under a tight deadline, and the second side was recorded in between sessions for nine months. And the recording was almost too big and complex to the recording technologies of the time, what with so many overdubs and multitracking. Guitars are out of tune and out of sync, there are noticeable glitches everywhere, you can hear Mike's breath through many of the guitar solos here, there's one loud, bum note near the end of part one. But you know what? When the music per se is so mindblowingly fantastic, I can't help but give a DAMN about that. And I've grown to fully believe that the "poor" quality of the recording only gives the album more charm. The album represents teenager emotions, anger, frustration, hopelessness, sadness, and the "poor" aspects of the album only help to make the album more humane and organic. The music lives and breathes, and you can almost talk to it.</p>

<p>Reason the second: It's too different from the rest of Mike's output. Well, indeed! It only makes the album even more unique and treasurable. Though, with a bit of a stretch, I can say that ALL of Mike's works are different from the rest, and very unique to some extent. I can see nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>Reason the third: Mike did much better stuff in the future. I know it's a sole question of personal opinion, but I disagree. I only consider <em>one</em> Mike Oldfield album superior to this one. And while several of his later works stand very tall against this one, they are just too... different to truly beat it. It stood the test of time very well, it still challenges and intrigues people (like me) even today, and of course, it's still popular.</p>

<p>Reason the fourth: It's overrated. Well, now... we've reached a delicate topic. I can understand that Mike did many other albums that deserved a LOT of popularity, but that never got any. And the attention and popularity <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> got (and still gets) is DAMN INSANE. But then, I step in and say the album deserved <em>every single iota of attention it got.</em>. The fact that the rest of his output was underrated and/or unjustly obscure doesn't detract from the fact that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> was only popular because it deserved to be.</p>

<p>And then, the questions begin: Why did it deserve so much popularity? Well, I can just say that the music is INSANELY GOOD and rest my case. And I won't be betraying the truth, either! The music is <em>objectively</em> fantastic, and you will only not see that if you close your eyes and your ears with all your might. The music is incredibly rich, stuffed with melodies and original ideas, and stuffed with so much force that it almost screams. It showcases intricate musicwriting skills, refined arrangements and <em>masterful</em> playing. Even so young, Mike had already an impressive skill with his guitar - and I don't mean shredding and flashing virtuoso solos all around, no sir. He really makes his guitar sing. I'm talking about very heartfelt playing, here. And he plays a whole lot of different instruments, too! There is plenty of piano and organs. The organs are a very fun part, because they're <em>emulating synthesizers</em> most of the time. Mike had no access to synths, so he created all those textures and sounds with three different kinds of organs. The album is devoid of lyrics (though it does feature vocals, spoken and sung), and part one has no drums whatsoever. And it's filled with nifty production tricks, like double speed guitar (to make the "mandolin" sound), "morphing" organs (one of my favourite sounds here) and an organ chord that raises in pitch.</p>

<p>And the music is... well, simply <em>unclassifiable</em>. You can't label it, plain and simple. It really challenges <em>me</em>, even after so much time and so many listens and so many reviews. It's almost impossible to describe the music without going in details about every single segment of music here. Truth is, even to this day, that introduction stills gives me chills: unforgettable piano line in odd time signature, joined by glockenspiel and organ soon afterwards. It sounds like that music is coming from another dimension. Sometimes I'm trapped by my own thoughts, and I think "NO WAY that music was made on planet Earth". I could give the music many adjectives: mystical, grandiose, challenging, haunting, cathartic... but no matter how many adjectives, you still will have no idea of how this sounds like. Really, if you do want to know, get the album. But before you listen, take a long look at the album cover, with the bent bell floating eerily over the beach, and at the back cover, with the bones burning on the sand. The images will probably puzzle you, and many even fascinate you, and you can be DAMN SURE that the music will sound every bit as haunting, puzzling and intriguing as those images.</p>

<p>The sounds captured by this album are just unbelievable. I already mentioned the piano line, but there is OH so much more to it than that. That intro is entirely fantastic, with instruments joining in slowly, leading the music through many slightly different segments, and slowly building up, until the guitars start dueting and it all takes off into an amazing climax. Minor key switches into major key, and THEN... then it all goes wild: heavy metal guitar soloing (without drums!), growling bass guitars, disorienting acoustic guitar, murmuring "blues" guitars, creepy rhythms almost simulating a satanic ritual of sorts, mystical acoustic guitar "red skies" picking, and THEN... well, then comes the part one finale. The entire thing begins with that completely weird, but fascinating modal bass riff, but the real meat comes when the glorious voice of Vivian Stanshall starts annoucing instruments, one by one, as they play a glorious melody in unison. I really can't describe that build up with words, and the moment when "tubular bells" are announced and Mike starts banging them with a coal mallet is an unique moment in the history of the world. The lonely acoustic guitar solo that ends the side is just as noteworthy, too. If you're in for a bit of trivia, the album title was derived from Viv Stanshall's narration, not vice versa. Until Mike heard the finished piece, the piece was simply titled "Opus 1". And the inspiration for the album cover came after Mike recorded the bells - since he was using a coal mallet instead of the usual wooden mallets, he bent and destroyed the bells.</p>

<p>Side two begins in a quiet, but tense tone. And I should say that those initial seven minutes or so are some of the most atmospheric and gorgeous music Mike <em>ever</em> put to tape - repetitive, mantraic, unsettling chords, several layers of guitar, piano, organs, and then, it gives way to one of the most emotional, gorgeous, heartbreaking and tear-inducing solos Mike ever did. And it isn't even a guitar solo! It's Farfisa organ, backed by gentle acoustic guitar picking. I love that part with all my heart, and the cathartic, gut-wrenching climax it reaches when that "mandolin" starts playing pretty much justifies Mike Oldfield's entire carreer. If <em>I</em> wrote that music, I sure as Hell would have enough reasons to become an arrogant dork. And then, the music takes an abrupt twist into the grim, angry, almost horror-inducing mantra with the multiple layers of "guitars sounding like bagpipes" chanting an unsettling melody (slightly derived from the bass guitars on part 1). And when the horror comes to its very peak, the drums break in, and one of the most hilariously one-of-a-kind moments of Mike's music breaks in, with Mike's drunken ramblings played back at half speed with an irresistible slow, plodding rock 'n' roll groove going on. I simply <em>love</em> the way the music morphs from "dark" into LOL-worthy, with whiny guitars and funky-arse drums. After such an intense ride, the music settles down, and it's all reduced to dirgey organs and bass guitar. And what follows is yet another unforgettable, gorgeous solo - and this time, on electric guitars! This solo is <em>stupendous</em>, entirely improvised, and reeking with honest and genuine emotions. It's both technically stunning <em>and</em> emotionally razing, and even being so lengthy, Mike is able to grab your mind and never let go. And because the music was just too gloomy, he breaks into a rendition of <em>The Sailor's Hornpipe</em> on a mandolin, with his backing band playing a full-blown jig, with a fiddle and everything else! And it speeds up like mad! What an ending!</p>

<p>If you're not amazed, the end of the album was supposed to be a LONGER rendition of the tune, with the band roaming around the rooms of The Manor, while Vivian Stanshall made a hilarious nonsense speech about the house. It was cut from the album, but put back in for the reissue in <strong>Boxed</strong>. So if you wish, grab that one. As it is, this is one record you NEED. Like it or not, want it or not, you MUST grab this album. It's every bit as essential and indispensable as all those other hip albums that critics like to rave all over, like <strong>Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band</strong>, <strong>The Velvet Underground &amp; Nico</strong> and <strong>Calling All Stations</strong>. And the reasons are many: it's a historical landmark, a masterpiece, and a record that just can't be described. Trust me, you'll only know how it sounds like if you listen to it. Don't go expecting "avantgarde" a la Captain Beefheart or The Residents, though. Even if you're already used to all that freak music, this record will <em>still</em> intrigue you - because it's not <em>weird</em>. It's just strange, in a variety of ways. Please, treat this album with care. And if you DO like it, make sure to fetch more of his albums. Don't think of Mike as a one hit wonder. In short - don't make the same mistake the Americans made.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>15/15</strong></big> - After that HUGE review, would you dare to EXPECT a lower rating?<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - It's so resonant, it's scary. Gee, why so many adults can't make a record as expressive as this?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - It may borrow elements from other music, but it does so in a way never seen before and never seen again since.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Are you kidding? This album is richer than Sir Richard Branson himself.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Eat your heart out, <strong>Thick As A Brick</strong>!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/15.png" alt="15" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 18, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Out of Mike's first four albums, the long instrumentals that many fans worship, this is my favourite. That's strange in a way, because it is totally different in feeling to <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong>, <strong>Ommadawn</strong> and <strong>Incantations</strong>. Those other ones have a folkier, prehaps more polished, but a more BIG feeling, they are real epics and the feel like epics. This one feels funny to me in a way that I can't properly explain. However, this feeling is the main reason I love this album. It dosen't feel like an epic to me, prehaps because all the different 'parts' have albums nothing in common (especially in Part One). It just feels like instrumental music that happens to last a long time. Above all, it just feels RIGHT.</p>
 
<p>Part One has to be one of the best long instrumental tracks of all time. It starts off so perfectly! That amazing piano tune is wonderful enough, but the backing of other piano and organ suits it so well. I especially love the bass riff. So quirky and unique, when I hear it without the other music I can't imagine how it could possibly fit, but it does. Genious, and as you said from a 19 year old kid. That's only a couple of years older than me! I see I have a lot of catching up to do!! The tracks progresses nicely until crash, the fast guitars bit. For all the speed that Steve Vai and Joe Satriani can do, the can't do it like this. This is speed used properly! I also love the booming organ that follows. Then comes, after that rocking, a peaceful acoustic chord sequence. That's what I'm talking about when I say that the parts have almost no connection. I love this bit, if only because it leads up to one of the most beautiful acoustic guitar solos I have ever heard. The rest is good too, the clean guitar duet then the bombastic rock then the haunting acoustic and then THAT bass riff. I was underwhelmed by this when I first heard it, but I've grown to love it. And oh, man does that tune all the instruments play just blow me away. I would like the Tubular Bells to give this a little more of a climax, but it's a minor thing. Simply a wonderful ending, no wonder it's one of his most beloved pieces of all time.</p>
 
<p>I don't like Part Two as much. It just lacks that funny feeling I get from Part One. Still, it's pleasent. That drone of the bagpipe guitars can get on my nerves though (he repeats that drone in both <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong> and <strong>Ommadawn</strong>, annoyingly) and I need to be in the right mood for the piltdown man. No matter whan anyone else says I will always like 'Ambient Guitars' from <strong>Tubular Bells 2003</strong> better than the version here, but that's just me. 'The Sailor's Hornpipe' is a fun way to end things off, but I've heard more effective endings from Mike. I consider Part Two a letdown after Part One, but there isn't much around that can top Part One. Overall, this is one of the most fantastic albums I've ever heard. At least 8 out of 10.</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Thoughts? Complaints? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="ridge">Hergest Ridge (1974)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Both parts rule.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Hergest Ridge, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Hergest Ridge, part 2 ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Well, so this is it - the moment when all went wrong. You know, it may be a
little unfair that this album is the main cause why Mike's carreer didn't launch
for good. After all, just as hard it is to understand Mike Oldfield, it is to
understand the public and the critics' wants. The way <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> gained such an insane popularity, only a really intelligent,
smart artist could take that to his own benefit. Not that I'm calling Mike
<em>dumb</em>, that is - but he wasn't a showbiz man. He was just a honest,
sentimental fellow who took his music as a very personal affair. Music was a
thing of the heart, for him, not a thing of the mind. And so, Richard Branson
pressured him for another LP, seeing the cash-potential in him, and this album
came out.</p>

<p>The truth is, this album is <em>nowhere</em> near "subpar" or "rushed"
material. Of course Mike could have just churned out some half-arsed sequel of
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, and worse, it could have been a hit. But
surprisingly, this is an album done "under pressure" that many other artists
would spend years trying to match. The reason why it was such a flop among the
critics is the <em>drastic</em> stylistic change from <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>. There's hardly anything here that reminds the previous album -
sonic textures, instruments, atmosphere, songwriting style, and almost
everything changed. You know, if there's <em>one</em> aspect of <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> that is expanded here, it's the repetitive, mantraic aspect,
showcased in the openings of the sides of that record. Here, on <strong>Hergest
Ridge</strong>, almost every theme is repeated on and on, developed very slowly
and very carefully. It's like Mike let the music write itself, grow by itself,
acquire life, like it was some sort of vegetation.</p>

<p>And indeed, the music has a <em>lot</em> to do with the landscape of Hergest
Ridge, and its vegetation and all. The album is very pastoral, very organic,
featuring mostly acoustic guitars, woodwinds, a bit of trumpet, and even
"overblown" choral arrangements by David Bedford. Of course, Mike didn't ditch
his beloved electric guitar at all - it's still here, and it steals the
spotlight a couple of times throughout.</p>

<p>So, is the music <em>good</em>, then? Well, personally, I love it! Yes, I
like it quite a lot! The music is gorgeous! Every section of music here is
beautiful, each in a different way. The most important thing here is that, being
so different from <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, the album showcases Mike's
skills in writing melodies under a very different light. The music is
surprisingly refined and skillfully written, displaying quite complex chord
progressions and melodies at times. The moment that shows that best is the
final section of part 1, when the bass riff starts and Mike gets into a quite
groovy rhythm. His guitar leads the way through a very, very beautiful melody,
and when it goes quiet, it's taken over by a <em>gorgeous</em> arrangement for
piano and choir, done by Mike's buddy David Bedford. That choir gives me the
chills every time. And maybe to keep the tradition, the tubular bells come at
the end to conclude the first side in a subtle, humble climax.</p>

<p>But what might make listeners a bit annoyed/bored is what comes
<em>before</em> that part. The first minutes of the music are taken over by a
ascending three-note guitar line, and occasionaly a beautiful melody. It
eventually reaches one of those trademark Mike Oldfield climaxes, with a very
tense twist later on. And then, it gets into a wonderful "folky" passage with
an oboe and a trumpet. Even the music is fairly quiet, there are some very tense
moments, with dynamic shifts and all. Part two begins very folky, with acoustic
guitar, chimes, and beautiful textures with electric guitar and organs. It
changes around a little, before yet another climax comes around, bringing some
very, very beautiful singing with Clodagh Simmonds's nonsensical words. This may
be one of the most "cathartic" moments in the album, but it only hints at the
mounting tension that comes afterwards. And I really <em>mean</em> tension,
since what comes afterwards is a <em>drastic</em> departure from the folky,
organic textures we've heard so far. Mike kicks in with dozens of overdubbed
distorted, compressed electric guitars creating a hell of a "thunderstorm" with
a menacingly fast, pumping rhythm. It's not really a vicious, evil heavy metal
piece of music, but it's an <em>awesome</em> thing to be heard very loudly. It
lasts six minutes, but it goes through chord changes aplenty, and it gives a
very palpable feeling, at least to me. The thunderstorm vanishes, and the album
ends with a calming, peaceful recapitulation of the beginning of the side.</p>

<p>I say, this is definitely a quite difficult album to assimilate. I say that
because it isn't a very "ready" album. It's pretty rough, overall, with some
sharp edges. Of course <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> was edgy too, but that one
WAS one big hell of a rollercoaster ride. This album is definitely one the
"difficult" side, and that's quite a lot of fans dismiss it. I don't, though!
To me, this is one of Mike's finest. It may not be the album to hear every day,
but whenever I'm in the mood for some pastoral, peaceful music, but with lots
of emotional edge, THIS one is a definitive listen.</p>

<p>Oh, and remember that there are TWO versions available of the album. The
version most easily found nowadays is the remix made for the 4 LP set
<strong>Boxed</strong>. The original '74 mix is only found on vinyl, and it has
more instruments and a more saturated mix. In some aspects, the remix improves
on the original - the vocals on side 2 are actually AUDIBLE, and the mixing is
less rough and more balanced, But it makes the album considerably more "ambient"
and repetitive, especially on the side one opening. The original had instruments
that were completely wiped out from the mix. However, I can perfectly see how
the remix was the way the album was supposed to be, and those "extra"
instruments were inserted to make the album more appealing and less difficult.
Getting hold of the original mix is a fairly difficult task, and only fans will
want to do that. But if you ARE a fan, you'll most likely want to have both
versions lying around. They're different enough to be worth owning.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Maybe I'm exaggerating here a bit, but I really love the album.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Wonderful atmosphere. In a way, this is even more touching than <strong>Ommadawn</strong>.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Though this wasn't the point, anyway. Mike wasn't willing to make the album, so I forgive him, anyway.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Wonderful melodies. Mike consolidates his status as a gifted melody writer.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Yah.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them to me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="obells">The Orchestral Tubular Bells (1974)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>None.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">The Orchestral Tubular Bells, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Orchestral Tubular Bells, part 2 ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>If there is one very bad thing about this album, it's the fact that it points
at the avalanche of "Bell" albums to come in the future. But hey, this was 1974,
right? It's not the album's fault. So, what's all about it? The title says it
all: it's a reworking of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> for orchestra. The
project is the brainchild of David Bedford, friend of Mike's, who used to play
with him in Kevin Ayers's band. Both <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> and
<strong>Hergest Ridge</strong> received orchestral arrangements by David, and
both of them were performed in public. Oddly enough, only this one was released
as an album. There <em>is</em>, though, a recording of <em>The Orchestral
Hergest Ridge</em> circulating on the Internet, which was taken from live
performances featuring Steve Hillage on guitar (a spot that was supposed to be
taken by Mike himself, but his blinding fear of appearing in public made him
turn down the offer). I <em>do</em> have such recording on CD, right next to a
"remaster" of the original 1974 edition of <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong>,
thanks to a pal of mine from a Mike Oldfield Internet forum, who kindly sent it
to me by mail. It's a <em>fantastic</em> item, basically the final piece of my
Mike Oldfield discography puzzle. Thanks a <em>whole lot</em> to Jules for the
gift (honest!).</p>

</p>But this one, well, it's no hard-to-find curio. It's an official release,
and it does feature a brief appearance by Mike Oldfield himself near the end.
And what do I think of it? It's a <em>damn fine</em> work my David Bedford. You
know, you only need a bit of common sense to realise what kind of challenge it
is to convert such an unique, challenging piece into an orchestral piece. And
David managed with honours. Basically the whole thing is there, every melody and
every little twist kept intact. As a result, rabid fans of the original album
will most likely be at home with it. You'll just <em>have</em> the accept the
lack of guitars and the absence of unusual instruments in the brew, like the
"nasal choir", the flageolet, double speed instruments and such. It <em>is</em>
an orchestra, after all, so you'll have to accept the album as a
reinterpretation of the original piece. If you just can't imagine the music
being played in any other way, you'll probably want to stay far, far away from
this one.</p>

<p>But to people like <em>me</em>, who truly admire the pure music of the album,
this album is great, and even stunning at parts. David's main work was not in
making an exact copy of the original album (otherwise, what's the point?). He
gives the album a brand new, unique identity, you see. It's <em>different</em>
from the album, which means it's a refreshing, curious look at the album. But
the most impressive thing is the way David seems to be familiar with the
<em>essence</em> of the original album: the feel, the style, the emotion. And
all of that remains pretty much intact. If this project were handled by a
conservative composer, who lives his entire life conducting only classical
pieces, <em>no way</em> the album would have turned out this brilliant. David
sure knows what <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is all about, so the haunting,
cathartic aspects of the album are all there.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean there are no differences, though! The music is changed in
several spots, sometimes due to technical limitations, sometimes due to style.
Say, there is no "Master of Ceremonies" in the Part 1 finale, there are no
Piltdown man vocals, so you can expect those bits to be somewhat different,
indeed. Still, in the Part 1 ending, Bedford manages to achieve a convincing
build-up, and the "Piltdown Man" part is transformed into a grim, slow march
which turns into humourous almost in a wave of the hand. How did he do it? I'll
never know. The most "glaring" change in style is at the "double speed guitar"
bit in the middle of part 1, when the music is suddenly turned into a big band
swing! Yes, really. The only part of the album that has guitars is after the
"Piltdown Man" section in side two. And when the music calms down, Mike pulls
off a pair of solos - one of them on Classical guitar, the other on electric.
And, well, they are every bit as brilliant as an ordinary Mike solo should be!
My complaints? Well... my favourite part of the album is spoiled a bit. Remember
the graceful, soaring mandolin at the end of the lengthy organ solo? Well, it
loses a bit of its grace here, being handled by loud horns. And... something
disturbs me, but it's got nothing to do with David's job. At times, the
orchestra's performance sounds a bit too sloppy! Almost like they didn't want to
be there at the time, or like they just didn't get into the spirit of the album.
I won't speculate it, but I won't deny that the music sounds a bit "off" at
times.</p>

<p>Yes, those are all my complaints. Does that mean the album is near-perfect?
Yes, perhaps it does. I just won't say I'm a rabid fan of the album, though. I
mean, I just don't think I'll put this one instead of the Mike Oldfield original
whenever I'm in the mood for some <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. I'm just too
used to the sound of the original, y'know, so I guess it's a question of
personal taste. But there's no denying how good this album is. I'll even dare to
say that this album is essential to fans of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> - at
least way more than Mike's own "sequels".</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - So the music loses a bit of its original charm, but gains a brand new charm of its own!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - The orchestra <em>does</em> remove a bit of the impact. Could it have been different?... perhaps.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - I can't be sure on how original the orchestra sounds here. I'm no specialist, y'know!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - You know! Almost <em>nothing</em> is lost here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It flows nicely.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/12.png" alt="12" />
</p>

<p>Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them to me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="ommadawn">Ommadawn (1975)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <span class="song">On Horseback</span><em>. Hey, it's the only "song" here!</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Ommadawn, part 1 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Ommadawn, part 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Another album, another stylistic change - though not a HUGE departure, this
time around. This is the big fan favourite, the cult classic, the one fans would
start a World War if necessary to defend. And guess what? Considering the status
of this album in the fan community, I'm a fucking heretic. I don't dislike the
album at all, but it's surprisingly underwhelming for me, especially when
compared to the previous ones. But before we go into the personal stuff, let's
take a clear, unbiased look at it, shall we?</p>

<p>Well, it's a change alright. If we're talking about <em>sound</em> and
textures, this album is certainly much closer to <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong>.
But in terms of structure, this is just in the same vein as <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>. So, you could think of the album as the correct "bridge" between
both albums... well, errr, yeah, maybe. I wouldn't say so. You see, this is the
moment when Mike got <em>ambitious</em>. There are LOTS of extra musicians
playing here, lots of different, new instruments, and lots of influence from
"ethnic" music - proto-New Age meanderings cross over with Celtic, Folk, rock
music and African rhythms. Sounds odd? Well, it sounds like a hell of a mishmash
of styles, indeed. But the impressive thing is that Mike manages to bring all
those elements together very, very smoothly. They all become part of the same
landscape, instead of elements being slammed into each other, as in
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. The songwriting skills are as high as ever -
refined, complex motifs and themes are built, and then deconstructed carefully
and rebuilt into something completely different. One single melody is used to
express many different moods, and the tapestry of melodies and sounds is woven
very gracefully, almost without any flaws and rough edges in it.</p>

<p>But see, that's my problem with it. It's just TOO polished for its own good.
Mike Oldfield imagined this album as a self-portrait, a very personal album for
him, expressing his feelings very closely. It's supposed to be a cathartic,
moving, soul-crushing and gut-wrenching album, you see. But I'm not moved by it.
The music is just way too manipulative and "prepared" to achieve the effects
that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> achieved so superbly. Just look at how the
different sections of music are so blatant and have a "clear" purpose: you have
the grandiose, bombastic climax in the opening; you have the joyful, childish
flute tune; you have the <em>GRANDIOSE, BOMBASTIC</em> side one finale; you have
the pastoral, gorgeous acoustic intermezzo on part two. and you have the
"childish" album finale, the folk ditty 'On Horseback'. Mike was just too
positively sure of his intentions when making this album. And it simply screams
on my face everything that I was <em>supposed</em> to feel while listening to
it. Well, I don't buy it. Maybe it's some silly resistance, but I don't think
so.</p>

<p>But that doesn't detract from the fact that it <em>is</em> some very solid
music, you know. I happily, openly agree that the music here is quite fantastic.
The melodies are beautiful, the arrangements are thick and professional, and
Mike's guitar playing just keeps on improving. The opening brings some cold,
mysterious guitar picking and synthesizer background, before it morphs very
slowly and very gradually into a major key climax, on top of which comes
<em>another</em> climax, on top of which are guitars, woodwinds, trumpets and
everything. And then, it goes into several different segments a la
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. I'm particularly fond of that quiet, cute
passage with chimes and harps (I think) playing an understated melody, and the
brilliant guitar solo that comes afterwards. The ending here is SO bombastic and
SO loud and it makes <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> sound like Nick Drake. But
then, that isn't necessarily a good thing. The build-up of tension is good, with
African drums, Clodagh Simmonds' singing, neverending guitar arpeggios, and
everything else you can pile in it. And the big explosion of sounds is
inevitable: a climax that climaxes again, and climaxes again, until your
eardrums are yelling and shrieking louder than Mike's ourbursts of yelling,
shrieing guitar. It kind of passes me by, sadly, as much as I'd like to truly
like it. I'm not won over with mere power and bombast, y'know.</p>

<p>Fortunately, side B is better. Somehow, Mike Oldfield came up with some
REALLY atmospheric passages. And the initial five minutes keep on with the
legacy of the dozens of layered guitars, kind of rounding off the evolution
of "Guitars sounding like bagpipes" and "Hergest Ridge thunderstorm". Here,
though, it's not so tense and/or frightening, being just mysterious and moody.
It's <em>very</em> slow, but it carries forth a melody, as you'll see. But my
favourite part is when it ends, and the acoustic guitar takes over. The harp in
the background is cute, but it's Mike that wins me over with that guitar
playing. But the best is yet to come - Paddy Moloney's bagpipe melody is
stupendously beautiful. I can definitely understand THIS piece of music being
just gorgeous, but then, fans prefer part 1 over part 2. So... I dunno.</p>

<p>The music speeds up into a fun, nice jig, with more of that electric guitar
we love so much. It stops abruptly, and we're taken into 'On Horseback'; Mike's
ode to riding horses. It's childish and na&iuml;ve, and Mike recites his lyrics
and sings the not necessarily <em>catchy</em>, but definitely nice chorus,
backed up by children in the end. The best part might be those electric guitars
sliding upwards quickly every time Mike sings "I'd rather be with you than
flying through space!" on the chorus. Great tune, <em>excellent</em> ending to
the album. You know, I'm not really trying to be "reactionary" with this album,
but it really is my least favourite 70's Mike album. After all, it's so short!
36 minutes! But then, that was probably a good thing. Imagine stretching out
this album to 42? If it's already bombastic the way it is, 8 more minutes of
bombast would have made the world explode. Yeah, thinking again, the short
length actually alows me to put this album in the fourth "quadrant" of ratings.
Keep it like that, then.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Yeah, it's all well written and played, but not as striking as it could have been.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - It might not touch the right nerves in me, but it touches my nerves, anyway.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Not as groundbreaking as <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, but then, was this really the point?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Well, I won't deny the songwriting efforts of Mr. Long Haired Hippie here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - Yeah, it flows smoothly and all... whatever.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/12.png" alt="12" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Flames? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="incantations">Incantations (1977)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Part 3</big><em>, I think.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Incantations, part 1 ++</span></li>
  <li>Incantations, part 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Incantations, part 3 ++</span></li>
  <li>Incantations, part 4 <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>It's often said that Mike Oldfield invented New Age with <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>. In my opinion, that's only true to some extent. After all, the
album as a whole has <em>hardly</em> anything to do with New Age. But I can see
how those repetitive, meandering sonic textures may have influenced other
artists to try the same. The following two albums could also have pushed it
more into the New Age territory, but there were too many other influences in
them, too.</p>

<p>But if there is ONE album that truly made a true statement of what New Age
could be, should be or is supposed to be, then <strong>Incantations</strong> is
it. It's a double album, with four pieces taking up the sides of both records.
It runs up to seventy minutes, and on average, there are two or three sections
in each part. Indeed, the "repetitive" factor has taken over completely. The
main rule here is to take a theme and truly let it flow until it's tired. As
such, I don't recomment this album too much for people who have a short
attention span: you either let this album run as background music, or you
REALLY dedicate a lot of time and attention to it. But I can assure it, if you
DO dedicate yourself to this album, it's bound to be a very, very rewarding
experience.</p>

<p>For one, Mike dropped the "cathartic" factor, and also abandoned all the
"ethnic" elements that took over <strong>Ommadawn</strong> so ruthlessly. What
is in this album? Folk? Celtic? African beats? Nope, not at all. Again, the
music defies genres and categories, bringing back <em>some</em> of the
challenging atmosphere of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, and the only way to
express what this album sounds like is describing it in detail. If it does bring
some influences, they come from Prog Rock and North American aboryginal music,
and probably from what was turning into New Age. Maybe there's a dosage of
Eno's <strong>Another Green World</strong>, but I'm not too sure on that. What
matters is that the music is taken over by string sections, woodwinds, choirs,
pounding drums, chromatic percussion, electric guitar and synthesizers. Sounds
strange? Well, I can tell you that Mike really does a great job in assembling
those elements into a sensible, intricate tapestry. The arrangements get more
and more complex and refined, and the melodies are quite surprisingly elevated.
There are even a mantra of Latin words and poems, one of them extracted from
"The Song Of Hiawatha".</p>

<p>What truly gets me about this album is that it's far more cerebral than
<strong>Ommadawn</strong>. That, to me, is a plus - you know, I really LOVE it
when Mike does cathartic, deeply emotional music. But he loses it when he gets
too obvious. And this album just doesn't aim for an emotional impact. And when
the impact IS achieved, it's mostly by accident. What I really like about the
album is its mesmerising, truly hypnotic effect. Part one really gets me, with
those soaring, fast-moving strings and complicated swirling flute, that later
develops into something more "aboryginal", with a snipped of trumpet playing,
and then a long section with the words "Diana, Luna, Lucina" being chanted by
a choir. Those sequences of three notes are really, really brilliant. You know,
this first part is easily one of the best, serving as a "prelude" to the album,
getting me into the mood gradually. Those strings really give me the teary-eyed
feeling of flying, and like I said, the choral part is brilliant. And the long
flute solo that finishes it is breathtaking.</p>

<p>Part 3 is my favourite, kicking off with an impressive, orchestrated
"fanfare" with Mike's guitar leading the way (that part was chopped off for the
earliest CD releases of the album, so watch out! Grab a newer release with the
17 minute track!). Then, it turns into a lengthy, very length part with pounding
drums and marimbas, and Mike plays a fantastic, almost understated, but very
complex guitar solo. It's really one of those repetitive, drawn-out pieces of
music where the length really doesn't matter. And for the finale, Mike brings
Pierre Morlen, of Gong, to play drums. And the music turns into a very 70'sish
groove with synthesizers and guitars - the most intense and hard-hitting part
of the album.</p>

<p>Part 2 starts off with an almost <em>scary</em> part, and one of my
favourites. The synthesizer is, in fact, playing the trumpet melody of part 1
<em>backwards</em>. And then, it goes off into an <em>extremely</em> shivery,
chilly quiet part with the guitar weeping very quietly the three-note sequences,
before a choir kicks in. <em>That</em> is real emotional manipulation, the way
I like it. For the rest of the piece, Maddy Prior (of Steeleye Span) sings a
long extract of "The Song Of Hiawatha" over an aboriginal section. You know,
this is a very repetitive, drawn-out piece of music where the length DOES
matter. I'm sure many people enjoy this piece, but I'm slightly unable to like
it too much. But whatever, it's still beautiful. Part 4 kicks off with the most
New Agey moment in the album, with harps and synthesizers and pianos creating
a wonderful, dreamy atmosphere. Shame that it's so short, for then you're
launched into a long section of chromatic percussion plinking on and on that
melody that's pretty much central to the album. Oh, garn, why do I have to say
that the sections are LONG? The short sections are the most unusual ones, you
know! What's not relatively LONG is the really groovy, hard hitting rhythm that
the vibraphones lead to. And when it vanishes, you're taken into the majestic,
quite sad climax of the album. Fortunately, it's not that bombastic, razing
climax of <strong>Ommadawn</strong> - it's just a sweeping melody with Maddy
Prior and Sally Oldfield singing a poem for the Moon before the album ends.
Pretty <em>sad</em> ending, I say, but very, very beautiful.</p>

<p>Again, this must be the most "difficult" album Mike ever released, and one of
the most ambitious ones. It's just a shame that it arrived right in the middle
of the Punk "revolution". And the fact that Virgin was signing The Sex Pistols
really upset Mike, and with a reason. You know, I don't want to be Mike's loyal
knight, since I don't really <em>like</em> him all that much, and all his
whining and complaining is kinda unjustified because he's a fucking MILLIONAIRE,
and keeps on talking about his aeroplanes, and his motorcycles, and his horses,
and his personal studio, and his latest-technology equipment, and his house in
Ibiza, and everything else. But it must be really a SUCK to pretty much create
an empire such as Virgin, only to have it turn its back to you. So, well, Mike
did have a reason to be upset. He was a cool guy.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/10</strong></big> - If a certain part seems to ramble on too much, I just leave it in the background for a while. Other than that, this is absolutely enjoyable.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>14/10</strong></big> - This is like... man, music for the soul!<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Well, maybe this <em>is</em> quite groundbreaking, but not innovative for Mike's standards.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/10</strong></big> - Wow.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>14/10</strong></big> - Four parts? Two LPs? Seventy-two minutes? And it still manages to flow seamlessly like this? Wow!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/14.png" alt="14" />
</p>

<p>Ideas? Suggestions? Comments? "John Cage sucks" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="platinum">Platinum (1979)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Platinum</big><em>, all four parts.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Platinum, part 1: Airborne ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Platinum, part 2: Platinum ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Platinum, part 3: Charleston ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Platinum, part 4: North Star / Finale ++</span></li>
  <li>Woodhenge <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Into Wonderland</li>
  <li>Punkadiddle <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>I Got Rhythm</li>
</ol>

<p>Either Mike thought <strong>Incantations</strong> was too big and inadequate,
and decided to "keep up with the times", or he was trying to collaborate with
the label a little more, or he was just willing to surprise his audience. This
isn't just another stylistic change, no siree: this is a complete detour into
the world of "mainstream" disco beats, prog rock and modern instrumentation.
Don't believe it? Give it a listen, then!</p>

<p>Well, this album must have given a total shock to Mike's fans back then. And
indeed, you can't say something as "Mike's career truly was leading to this,"
or "this album is just a logical progression". It <em>was</em> to be expected
that Mike would react somehow to the neglect he was getting from Virgin. But
another artist would probably try to "tone down" his ambitions and let some
commercialism enter his formula. But Mike went there and completely reinvented
himself as a musician. Not that he has "sold out", or started making pop music,
you know. This album is still quite quirky and complex, but it certainly has
much bigger tendeicies towards the mainstream and modern production values. This
means that the album sounds quite dated, nowadays. And this is particularly sad
when you realise how <em>timeless</em> his four previous albums sounded.
<strong>Platinum</strong> is really, truly a product of its times. But it's not
like I lament its "datedness", you know. The sound has a quite cool and solid
sound, and of course, the music is as great as ever.</p>

<p>The biggest amount of goodies are found on the first side of the record,
which is the piece 'Platinum', divided in four parts. The parts are quite
distinct and different from each other, but that doesn't mean they can't be
taken as a single composition. I, personally, refuse to take them as four songs.
They form one single whole, even if part four is a cover of a Philip Glass
composition. And I really can't name any of them as my favourite, since they
complete each other very well. Part 1, 'Airborne', goes for a quite Prog Rockish
sound, but with a groovy, swingy rhythm. The bass work in the beginning is
catchy, and when the full band kicks in, it totally grabs my mind. Mike's guitar
is as crisp as it can be, and the interlocking instruments sound as thick and
beautiful as ever. What's quite nice is that, even with the rock/disco sound,
you can <em>still</em> recognise the melodies and motifs as prime Mike Oldfield.
The greatest quality of the album is showing Mike's ability to shape his talent
into something different, and <em>still</em> make excellent stuff. That's
because of his great songwriting skills, I suppose.</p>

<p>Track two is mostly a great display of Mike's guitar playing, but it wouldn't
be as good if the melody wasn't so great. You've got to love that
<em>groovy</em> rhythm, the climatic crescendos with brass stabs, and the
hilarious last chorus, when the guitar is replaced with vocals going
"doo-doo-dee-dum dap dap!" all along. Track three, then, fucks everything up by
turning the music into a wild disco rave, with glittering neon-light brass
riffs, weird vocals, rhythmic whispers, bass guitar soloing and all that jazz.
Man, what a fascinating weird thing! I love this track. It's the good ole sense
of humour of Mike, and it's quite cool to think how he can make humour at the
right time. I can't say the last two parts were any <em>serious</em>, but it's
still quite impressive. But what's even more impressive is how that wild, disco
rave is turned into a <em>magnificent</em> performance of Philip Glass's 'North
Star'. Mike's guitars lead the way, as always, and the crescendo must be heard
to be believed. And it gives me shivers to think that it's all backed by
<em>disco</em> instrumentation, kick drum going "pump pump pump" and bass going
"bump badabump badabump" all the way. It's unbelievable. Fantastic track.</p>

<p>Side B isn't a long composition, and it's actually made up of four separate
tracks. Now, here is where a slightly complicating factor kicks in... See, track
6 was originally 'Sally', but Richard Branson didn't like the song at all, and
made Mike remove it (or so the story goes... it's not exactly well
confirmed...). So its replacement is 'Into Wonderland', but the LP's and CD's
still list it as 'Sally'. If you have the album on CD, you certainly have 'Into
Wonderland' disguised as 'Sally'. And I have to say, the replacement track makes
the album a bit patchier... It's a deliberately cheesy ballad, with vocals by
Wendy Roberts. It's not a bad track. It's just a bit weak, by Mike's standards.
And 'Sally', well, it's a hilarious rave using the same slow, plodding rhythm,
but reprising the main melody from 'Airborne'. It gives a better unity to the
album, and overall, it's a better track. It's not cheesy, and it's equally
humourous. And the guitar solo is great. I say, if you can fetch 'Sally'
somewhere on the Internet, do so!</p>

<p>Well, so what about the rest? Well, 'Woodhenge' is pretty much a pastiche of
what was becoming Ambient music. I say, it <em>is</em> quite faithful to Brian
Eno's philosophy, as displayed on <strong>Another Green World</strong>. The
instruments join in slowly, all repeating their respective motifs on and on. The
song has a quite awesome atmosphere, some understated guitar soloing, and a
subtle build-up and climax that work very, very well. 'Punkadiddle' comes off
the heels of original 'Sally' (if you have the version with 'Into Wonderland',
you should know that the intro to 'Punkadiddle' is actually the outro of the
original 'Sally'), and it's really a joke on Punk music. Successful? Hmm, it
isn't exactly bitter, or sneering. It's just silly. If Mike tried to make a
cruel joke, he failed. But he certainly didn't fail to provide a quite
entertaining song! It's very catchy, and has a simply unbeatable atmosphere. And
the sudden shouts (Hoi!) and audience noises only helps things, somehow. To
close the album, there's a rendition of George Gershwin's 'I Got Rhythm', sung
by Wendy Roberts again, but benefiting from Mike's arrangements. Well, it isn't
exactly a standout track, but it's beautiful, anyway.</p>

<p>I could say side B doesn't hold up too well after the intense heat of side A,
but well, that's forgivable. Mike was <em>just</em> venturing into mainstream
territory (though his disco single 'Guilty', using melodies from
<strong>Incantations</strong>, is quite impressive and amusing), and anyway,
'Platinum' is excellent, one of Mike's best side-long compositions ever. I
should say, 'Into Wonderland' isn't exactly excellent, but 'Sally' fully
deserves a double plus. And its presence would justify a very, very solid 13.
But I won't deduce any points because of its absence, so think of this as an,
er, "spiritual" 13. I'm lucky to have the original 'Sally' in my copy of the
album (shamelessly hacked together using an MP3 file from the Internet), so
there. Don't spend too much effort trying to get the original song, unless
you're a big fan.</p>

<p>PS: notice the second minute or so of 'Charleston': the bass riff quotes the
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong> riff from the end of side one. Remember that:
it's one of the very few <em>cool</em> self-quoting moments in Mike's
catalogue.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/10</strong></big> - 'Platinum' is way too cool for my life, and side 2 holds up quite well.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Most parts sound genuine, but I can't really say.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/10</strong></big> - It sure has lots of originality. In most parts.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/10</strong></big> - Mike is still in top form, this rating can't be lower.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>13/10</strong></big> - A bit broken on side 2, probably because of 'Into Wonderland'. 'Sally' fixes that a bit.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Anything? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="qe2">QE2 (1980)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>QE2</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Taurus 1 ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sheba ++</span></li>
  <li>Conflict</li>
  <li>Arrival <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Wonderful Land ++</span></li>
  <li>Mirage</li>
  <li><span class="good">QE2 ++</span></li>
  <li>Celt</li>
  <li>Molly</li>
</ol>

<p>Signs of decline! SIGNS OF DECLINE, OH MY GOD! But then, that's highly
debatable. I don't doubt there are people who think this is a major recovery
from <strong>Platinum</strong>, or something. And I certainly don't consider
this as a "sign of decline" (in case you're dumb, I was joking, y'know). Thing
is, if <strong>Platinum</strong> was an unexpected twist into the mainstream,
this is an <em>expected</em> twist into mainstream, as in, an album that goes
into the "commercial" direction <em>exactly</em> the way you'd expect an artist
like Mike Oldfield to go: shorter songs, smaller ambitions, catchier tunes,
more accessible arrangements, and... cover versions? Well, yes! Cover versions!
</p>

<p>Of course, it's a somewhat ridiculous think to think: such a gifted
songwriter as Mike Oldfield doing <em>cover versions</em> on his LP. But then,
this LP was actually an attempt to collaborate with Virgin. You know, "do
something sellable, do some covers, stuff that people know". It wasn't a
commercial success (which made Mike even more upset), but it <em>is</em> a
highly commercially-aimed album. It's not pop music - there aren't any lyrics
here - but this is almost as pop as instrumental music can be. This is... kind
of like that music that they play in public places where people don't want to
hear anything challenging. Like Muzak, yes. But the difference here is that
this is <em>MUCH</em> superior to Muzak: Mike's guitar playing skills are as
sharp as ever, the melodies are great, and the arrangements, while being simple
according to Mike's standards, are still well thought out and tastefully
complex. It's certainly not a masterpiece, but it's one of Mike's best records-
that-are-not-a-masterpiece.</p>

<p>So, how do you classify this music? It's not rock music, it's nowhere near
disco, and probably the biggest influence in this stuff is African music: you've
got those plodding drums almost everywhere, and many rhythms are groovy and
twangy in a way only black people can do. The songs are generally on that
"relaxed" vein, but that doesn't mean they don't cover a reasonably wide
pallette of moods and atmospheres: you've got a soaring anthem ('Arrival'), an
agitated war march ('Conflict') and a highly pleasant tune ('Wonderful Land').
But everything here is done in that fashion that's bound to make you relax, and
even sleep if you want to.</p>

<p>There are two big "epics" here, and they're mostly interconnected. 'Taurus 1'
(taking its title from Mike's star sign and the number, well, from the idea that
there are going to be continuations) starts off with a mandolin melody and a
groovy, plodding groove with Phil Collins on drums (yep, Phil Collins, ON
DRUMS!). It slows down in the middle, with a melody playing on a synthesizer
patch Mike seened to love (a double-speed woodwind, or so it seems), which then
takes off into an awesome, groovy African-drum-propelled rave with fast riffs
and motifs aplenty, guitar, synthesizer and Vocoder. Vocoder? Yes, Vocoder! You
know, it's kind of a strange track - there doesn't seem to be a progression or a
resolution to it, and those different parts don't seem to have that much to do
with each other. But then, it's only a part of the album, and the resolution
will come in the title track (not to mention the "sequel" on the next album).
'QE2' is quite nifty, beginning with synthesizer "wavey" sounds, and growing up
slowly with instruments joining in and building up towards a glorious "anthem",
which then is reshaped into a fun, lightweight "march" with guitars and
Northumbrian bagpipes. Oh, and I should say the title is taken from the ship
Queen Elizabeth II, so you should think of the track as a big ship leaving the
port and leaving into the sea. If you think about that, the song can give you
quite glorious mental images.</p>

<p>The covers? Well, there's ABBA's 'Arrival'. And here, it's rearranged for
guitars (that is, a plethora of different guitars), African drums and big
choirs. It's brilliant. Maybe a bit too overblown? Yeah, perhaps. To me, the
gorgeous 'Wonderful Land' seems to work better than the "Holier Than Thou"
bombast of 'Arrival' with a lighter, more "down-to-Earth" arrangement. But you
know, I think that Mike's original compositions just seem to work better for
those kinds of big arrangements, mostly because they were <em>made</em> to sound
like that. Unfortunately, there's only one song here that I'd call a genuine
masterpiece: 'Sheba', which features Maggie Reilly singing lead vocals. It's all
wordless chanting, of course. But given the nature of the song, there's no way
you can give "real" lyrics to this song. The melody is brilliant, Phil Collins
goes on bashing the drums, and the Vocoder sounds nifty. Definitely one of the
highlights here.</p>

<p>See, the other songs just don't appeal too much to me, but not because
they're "uninspired". I think they're just too... odd. 'Conflict' tries to rock
hard with ominous drums, harsh minor key melodies and stuff. It somehow doesn't
highlight Mike's best qualities as an arranger and melodywriter. 'Mirage' is
there mostly to showcase his guitar pyrotechnics - brilliant playing, of course.
But the song itself leaves a bit to be desired. I guess I prefer Mike as a
composer, anyway. And 'Celt' is... um, fillerish. It's like a watered-down, more
listener friendly 'Sheba', with a speedier rhythm and sunny singing and guitar
playing. Maggie Reilly is still great, but the song itself is too sticky sweet.
'Molly', at least, works wonders as a one-minute lullaby - gentle, fairly
memorable guitar melody and Vocoder backing. Beautiful, but it only works great
in the context of the album.</p>

<p>Of course, even being a "weak" album for Mike's standards, I could imagine it
being a big commercial success - that is, if Virgin CARED about it. But then,
think about what horrible path Mike's carreer could have taken if THIS was the
music that Mike was associated to instead of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>.
Maybe this album's relative failure was only a good thing, after all.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It stays there, on the background, quiet, but man is it pleasant!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Well, er, it sounds quite artificial, but that's not important on <em>here</em>.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Nah. Virtually everything Mike does here has been done before somehow.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Oh, well, it's pleasant music for a reason.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - The song quality never varies too much.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p>Any opinions? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="out">Five Miles Out (1982)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Five Miles Out</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Taurus II</li>
  <li><span class="good">Family Man ++</span></li>
  <li>Orabidoo <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Mount Teide</li>
  <li><span class="good">Five Miles Out ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>The commercialisation of Mike Oldfield didn't work the way it should have
been. So, in that case, there are two things you might do: sell-out completely,
or go back to your roots for good. Mike, on the other hand, broke the rules,
went completely against the norm and... stayed in the middle of the road.</p>

<p>And what do I mean with that? Well, if Mike intended to combine the artistic
and commercial aspects of his music in an unique blend, he didn't succeed, in my
opinion. You know, this album doesn't satisfy any of the two sides: the artistic
part is too watered-down and bland, and the commercial part is too restrained
and surrounded with artistic ambition. Not that the music is any bad, but this
album is definitely his weakest to this point. I say, even though the music
ain't bad, there's very little truly outstanding in it. And considering that
'Taurus II' lasts for twenty-four minutes and occupies the entire first side,
and that there aren't any ideas that make it a fair challenge against 'Platinum'
or even 'Taurus 1', that's a bit of a problem.</p>

<p>And indeed, among his "long" compositions, this is my least favourite of them
all. The sound is quite polished, mostly taken over by rock-solid rhythms,
drums, synthesizers and Mike's trademark "trebly" guitar whine. And the music
was largely inspired by Mike's adventures with planes and flying, and if you put
a bit of effort in it, the music can truly make you feel like you're suspended
high up in the yellow sky, flying amongst the clouds. But one thing is the
atmosphere of an atmospheric piece of atmospheric atmosphere, and something else
is the atmosphere of a composition that doesn't know which way to go. It's like
he didn't want to make <em>just</em> an atmospheric piece, so he kept pushing
the music to the "artistic", "complex" side - but there isn't any complexity
and refinement in the melodies and arrangements! There are just a couple of
bland, watered-down melodies, lots of guitar lead, bagpipes by Paddy Moloney,
synthesizer and whatever. But the music just noodles on and on, eventually
interrupted by Maggie Reilly's angelic voice chanting a repetitive melody a la
"Song Of Hiawatha" (but with themes of flying and "deep deep sound" and
whatever - and the melody's extracted from 'Taurus 1'). And I didn't even
mention the "disco" part that kicks in by the second half, with horrible
distorted, disfigured voices chanting something in a nonsense language, and I
just can't stand it. Erk, what annoying voices. The only part that I can say I
really like is the end, when Mike FIANLLY pulls out a set of nifty riffs to
close the song with a loud, razing, bombastic climax. You know, I don't
appreciate such pomposity and bombast to close a track that noodles aimlessly
for twenty minutes, but... hey, this is Mike Oldfield, who surprisingly doesn't
write his name as "Mike Old<strong><big><em>FIELD!!!!!</em></big></strong>", and
I enjoy the ending as a separate thing. But 'Taurus II', as a whole, is a
disappointment to me.</p>

<p>The second side, fortunately, reveals a couple of surprises - among them,
Mike's very first full-blown attempt at a synth-pop song - fast, boppy rhythm,
Maggie Reilly on the vocals, and a biting lyical content (?!). Great song! The
chorus gets repeated endlessly at the end (a problem you'll have to face with
quite a couple of Mike songs), but other than that, it's a solid effort. The
other 'song' is the title track, though it abandons the pop and goes towards a
bombastic approach, describing Mike's experience co-piloting a plane through
a storm. The song is salvaged by a solid set of melodies and a tricky, dynamic
and even cathartic structure. In four minutes, it achieved everything that
'Taurus II' only hoped to achieve. You get to hear Mike himself belting out his
lyrics along with Maggie and a Vocoder (giving the impression of a "singing
airplane").</p>

<p>This leaves us 'Orabidoo' - a composition quite unique in Mike's catalogue.
Again, it represents Mike's flying experiences in a more "musical" way, with an
odd, but quite captivating mixture of sounds, distorted vocals and effects. You
probably won't understand one word the Vocoder is buzzing, but the melody is
nice. Other remarkable things about it is the beautiful introduction with
glockenspiel (or is it a celeste?), with briefly recapitulates 'Conflict' from
the previous record (he really, REALLY loved linking melodies from previous
albums); the "storm" section in the middle of the song, which recapitulates one
of the good melodies from 'Taurus II', blasted out almost cacophonously by
different sounds; and the ending of the track, with Maggie singing wonderfully
over Mike's acoustic guitar backing. Just beautiful! Finally, 'Mount Teide' is
probably a piece of filler - a pleasant instrumental, but too insubstantial,
trying to achieve a greater "cathartic" effect. Carl Palmer provides percussion,
and Mike provides some rambling melody and whatever. Um... alright.</p>

<p>You know, a "weak" album by Mike's standards is still fairly good. But I just
don't listen to it too much. And I <em>did</em> try several times to enjoy
'Taurus II', but every time I fail. Unless some lightning hits my head and
rearranges my neurones completely and I learn to love 'Taurus II',
<strong>Tubular Bells III</strong> and 'Good Day Sunshine', I guess that song
shall be near the bottom of my ranking of Oldfield compositions. The album?
Well, it remains near the middle. I still regard 'Family Man', 'Orabidoo' and
'Five Miles Out' quite highly.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Think of this as the fun factor of side A and side B divided by 2, or something.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - I think I have <em>something</em> against that ultra-polished production...<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Heh, no improvement here.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>11/15</strong></big> - In that aspect, it doesn't really fail.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Eh.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/09.png" alt="9" />
</p>

<p>Criticism? Flames? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="crises">Crises (1983)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Crises</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Crises ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Moonlight Shadow ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">In High Places ++</span></li>
  <li>Foreign Affair <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Taurus 3 ++</span></li>
  <li>Shadow On The Wall <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>NOW we're getting somewhere! Finally Mike decided to stay so much in the
middle of the road and <em>completely</em> embraced a style, a sound, and maybe
an attitude. This album marks the time when Mike started to work heavily with
the Fairlight CMI - one of the most advanced synths of its time, I think; Peter
Gabriel also used one on his fourth solo LP. But amazingly, he didn't turn into
sloppy 80's synth-pop, no sir. At this time in his carreer, he really had some
talent with taking instruments and turning them into his slaves, instead of
turning into <em>their</em> slaves (ahh, good times those were). Result: we're
back to the refined, complex arrangements of yore, but this time with a
synthetic layer to glue everything together. Cool, eh? It also helps that the
songwriting is as inspired as ever! And it <em>also</em> helps that Mike kind of
split himself in two, and one half worked on the instrumental 20-minute-long
title track, and on the other track created a bunch of pop songs to give Virgin
a couple of extra bucks.</p>

<p><em>And it's a smashing success</em>, I says! After all, this is the album
that contains the eternal radio hit 'Moonlight Shadow', and a DAMN well-deserved
one. Maggie Reilly is back to contribute her vocals to this magnigicent, dreamy,
slightly sad piece of perfect pop music, with kickarse guitar solos in the end
to make the recipe complete. It's also great to see how it creates a subtle, but
very effective build-up all the way through. In case you're in doubt of Mike's
growing passion for synths, check out how well the acoustic guitar works
together with the soft Fairlight background.</p>

<p>But the real meat of the album certainly lies on side A - easily one of the
very best instrumental compositions Mike ever made. And I'm talking 'Platinum'
level here! The style has changed, of course: Mike turns to bluesy Rock music,
filled with guitars, snappy rhythms and frontal attacks of synths and whatnot.
But then, not the entire song is like that. It begins with a gorgeous landscape
of synthesizers, with then kick into a recapitulation of <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> - the riff is different, but similar enough for you to get the
reference. And after that, you've got loud, nerdy rock with Mike on vocals ("I
need you on my side for there's a crisis / and you can't get away!"), and
<em>stunningly</em> gorgeous passages of soft atmosphere with arpeggio guitars,
touching synth backgrounds and Mike's usually fabulous melodies. The moment when
Mike's singing about "the watcher and the tower" (an allusion to the album cover
- and in fact, it's quite remarkable how well the music matches the cover), and
then only the synthesizer remains, playing a simple but untrivial melody, is one
of Mike's defining moments, in my opinion. But the music ends with yet another
loud, bombastic climax - but this time, with an intense, bubbling, raging
build-up of synthesizers and bashing percussion. The ending is pretty much the
nicest kind of European Samba, which then stops briefly, only to end the track
in a chilly, mysterious note. Gee, I really like it when Mike does
<em>deceiving</em> things like that. It truly breaks the pomposity away, you
know! I need more of these.</p>

<p>I should say, I need to give a lot of recognition to Simon Philips, who's
responsible for the drums and the production (along with Mike) in this album.
Damn good job! There are some eyebrow-raising moments of drums here, and the
production is pretty much perfect - not "perfect" as in squeaky-clean, but
"perfect" because it matches the music very well. It gives a fabulous night-time
atmosphere, and the songs on side B also benefit a lot from that. 'In High
Places' has Jon Anderson (Yes, <em>that</em> Jon Anderson, Yes) singing the
vocals and probably telling Mike he should insert some odd signatures in the
song. The music? It's a great mix of "flying" themes with reggae, synth chords
and perfect atmosphere. One of my favourites. Another favourite of mine is the
brief 'Taurus 3', which doesn't have anything to do with its "prequels",
fortunately. It's just Mike displaying his indisputable talents with acoustic
guitars, backed by Simon Philips's percussions. The melodies are fantastic, the
playing is fantastic, and the contrast between the quiet parts and the VERY VERY
LOUD parts is fantastic as well. Definitely a highlight here.</p>

<p>The only spot that loses me is 'Foreign Affair', really. For a minute, it's
quite impressive: it's synth-pop with Maggie Reilly on vocals again, with
mysterious synth vibraphones and a snappy, swingy rhythm and... well, I guess
it's quite ahead of its time. But the just is just murdered at the end, when
Maggie is forced to repeat the first verse <em>six times in a row</em> until the
song vanishes into thin air. You know, I don't mind a bit of repetitiveness, but
THIS is just ridiculous. Was this a total lack of ideas? Why repeat the verse
<em>six</em> times? Wasn't there, you know, a <em>chorus</em> to place there?
A guitar solo? Oh, give me a break! What a wasted opportunity. Fortunately, the
album ends with an incredibly dorky, but delightful stab at "hard rock", with
Mike playing "cool" and Roger Chapman supplying his vocals. Sure the song begged
a <em>competent</em> hard rockin' sound, but in the songwriting aspect, the song
barely lacks anything: you've got the riff, the catchy (albeit kinda dumb)
chorus, and Roger singing unique vocals on the verses. Good stuff!</p>

<p>But really - cut out 'Foreign Affair' and you get Mike's <em>best</em> 80's
LP by far. Leave 'Foreign Affair' in and you get... well, Mike's best 80's LP
by not-so-far. What you need to know is that the four best tracks here represent
some of Mike's finest material (though people may say 'In High Places'
represents some of his <em>worst</em>), and for people who are getting
interested in Mike's music, this album is necessary. Get it if you find it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/10</strong></big> - Yeah! Yeah! Keep it coming, Mike! This is great stuff.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Mike couldn't do much better than this with synthesizers.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/10</strong></big> - Hmmm... There's hardly anything new, but Mike sure did evolve as a pop composer.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/10</strong></big> - Surprise!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Formulaic, perhaps... who cares?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Carried away by a moonlight <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a>...</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="discovery">Discovery (1984)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>To France</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">To France ++</span></li>
  <li>Poison Arrows <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Crystal Gazing <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Tricks Of The Light ++</span></li>
  <li>Discovery</li>
  <li>Talk About Your Life <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Saved By A Bell</li>
  <li>The Lake</li>
</ol>

<p>And what is this, then? Well, this is Mike going POP. BIG TIME. This is
almost a motherfucking SELL-OUT of sorts, but not quite. Um... did that even
make sense? Well, see it like this: SEVEN out of these eight tracks are pop
songs. Seven. And the obligatory instrumental, 'The Lake', goes ONLY up to 12
minutes. Sounds like an album for fans to bash mercilessly, right? Well, it
<em>does</em>, but it's not quite the case. Because, after all, the album didn't
go COMPLETELY pop, and while this is a saving grace for many a hardcore fan,
this is a reason for frustration to me. Because this is Mike back to the middle
of the road. And why?</p>

<p>Well, Mike was walking down the road to popland. 'Moonlight Shadow' was a big
hit, people loved it, and people told Mike to do more songs like it. So, well,
he did: the single 'Crime Of Passion' was pretty much a clone of 'Moonlight
Shadow' (though I like it - I think of it as 'Moonlight Shadow's evil brother),
though it didn't make that much success. But anyway, Mike was being <em>led</em>
down that road, and he apparently didn't do much against it. Thing is, he still
wanted to do some of that good, old complex art. So he just didn't go <em>all
the way</em> to Popland with this album, and stopped before getting there. So
you have seven pop songs here, but something stops them from being catchy,
delightful music for the airwaves. And what is it? It's the goddamn AMBITION!
Mike just insisted that he wanted to make those songs for the mere mortal man
into something more artistic, so there's some kind of attitude running through
the album... I don't know quite what it is, but the songs are arranged and
sequenced as if they were something "bigger". But they <em>aren't</em>! At their
core, they're excellent, professional pop songs, but it's that thing of
"disguising" them with tons of artistic make-up that disturbs me and stops me
from enjoying the album completely.</p>

<p>And it also doesn't help that the instrumental composition isn't even that
good. 'The Lake' is Mike fully on autopilot, putting his synths to work, but not
being too inventive with them. The song's filled with those saccharine
sticky-sweet tones, those cutesy melodies and "heavenly" guitar playing that...
kind of reduces the impact of his songwriting. I like Mike's songs complex but
barebones - like 'Crises'! And someone nailed it when he said 'The Lake' sounds
like a "demonstration" tune that comes with brand new synthesizers. There ARE
some solid parts in it, and some of the writing is quite excellent. But with
THAT production, the song doesn't reach me at all. And the "cathartic" effect
at the end is just annoying. Of course it's much better than 'Taurus II', but
that isn't saying much, is it?</p>

<p>The songs... well, the songs ARE good, almost all of them. Like I said,
they're excellent tunes at their core, and it's all the make-up that bothers me.
What is that make-up, exactly? Well, it isn't that kind of production
"embellishment" you're thinking of, neither the synthesizers. It's the overall
attitude, and the attemps at making something "cohesive", recurring melodies and
all. I just think that, if you're making a Pop album, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A
GODDAMN POP ALBUM and <em>ADMIT IT</em>. This is like Mike saying "<em>POP</em>?
BLASPHEMY! This is ART!" at me, and me laughing at him. Sorry, Mike, but you
don't convince me.</p>

<p>Still, I give him kudos for the songs themselves. 'To France' particularly
sticks out, with Maggie Reilly on vocals again, this time around delivering a
folksy song with loud, bombastic arrangements and just <em>something</em> that
reminds me of ABBA. Must be the rhythm, or something. Still, excellent song!
Some classy guitar playing, slightly tragic sound, and Maggie's wonderful voice.
For the second track, Mike brings a male vocalist, Barry Palmer. And even though
his voice is hoarser and rougher than I wished it was, he still does a good job
here. 'Poison Arrows' is the best Palmer-sung track here, with a melody slightly
derivative of 'Moonlight Shadow', but with a good "dark" arrangement. The wolf
howls at the end are a bit silly, though.</p>

<p>The other Barry Palmer are not as good. The title track is the most solid: a
slow, plodding hard rock track with a good, solid riff, a fine guitar solo, and
a bit cheesy melody, but nothing offensive. 'Saved By A Bell' is... well,
it's... a <em>power ballad</em>, there. Though as far as power ballads go, this
one isn't bad. But of course, you'll have to deal with the cute, quiet verses
stumbling into the LOUD, POWERFUL chorus with a drum fill. And in case you're
allergic to that kind of stuff, you'll probably have to skip it. I'm not exactly
content with its presence here, and it's definitely the worst song of the album,
but I don't mind it. Other than that, Barry shares 'Tricks Of The Light' with
Maggie Reilly, and <em>that</em> is a SOLID, snappy pop song. Great melody,
great structure, great guitar riff too.</p>

<p>I guess it's just a <em>coincidence</em> that the tracks with Maggie are the
best ones, because I don't have anything against Barry Palmer, really. Still,
'Crystal Gazing' is a <em>fine</em> synth pop song, faster than 'Foreign
Affair', and without the excruciating repetition, fortunately. The "ominous"
sound is nicely done, and the pop melody is a good one. 'Talk About Your Life',
which starts side A, is a surprisingly beautiful, dramatic ballad, that
annoyingly includes the main melody from 'To France' for no other reason than to
give the album a fake tone of "cohesion". Totally unnecessary, I say: there are
better ways to make an album cohesive. This is just a silly Ommadawnification of
a perfectly fine pop album, but I already ranted about that. So... you have a
darned fine 80's Mike Oldfield album, and the second best one. Anyone who
doesn't mind an artist like Mike Oldfield going pop will <em>have</em> to check
this one out - after getting <strong>Crises</strong>, of course. And who knows,
you might love this album. There are several people who do (read comment below),
and this relatively low rating is just personal taste, after all. I just
<em>don't</em> buy that 'Lake' thing, though.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - ... oh? Oh, yes, it's an enjoyable album.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - The impact of this album is GREATLY reduced by reasons I mentioned above.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/15</strong></big> - It <em>is</em> his first full-blown venture into pop music, but this stuff was done before... especially 'The Lake'.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Sure! Well written as always!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Hmpf... however contrived those attempts at "cohesion" are, they do work... to some extent.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 3, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>This is, in my opinion, Mike's most underrated album among fans, and it's certainly one of my favourite albums of all time. This is because, unlike many of his later song-based albums, it has really solid pop tunes and lyrics. Plus, The Lake is an absolutely killer instrumental.</p>

<p>As the single from the album, To France is really very nice, quite catchy. Maggie Reilly gives a good performance, and I love the guitar work. Poison Arrows is pretty good, I do love Simon Philips' drumming here, and there's something about the first few verses that I just love. Crystal Gazing is one of only two songs on here (the other being the title track) that I don't like. I think its the melody, plus I find the lyrics a bit strange. Tricks of the Light, on the other hand ROCKS hard! I don't care if the lyrics make no sense whatsoever (I get more meaning from Jon Anderson's stuff on <strong>Tales from Topographic Oceans</strong>), it really is fantastic. That distorted riff and the clean solo, wonderful. The title track, however, is not wonderful. It does very little for me, if anything, but the guitar solo is pretty neat. Total change of mood here for Talk About Your Life, the song which proves that Maggie Reilly is one of the best vocalists around, and that Mike can write convincing lyrics. I've always thought that this song could fit well in a musical for some reason (even though I think there's something suspicious about musicals. I don't see people in real life bursting into a song about cats...). Saved by a Bell is also pretty good. I think the verses are a bit silly, but the choruses are great, and Simon Philips gives some of the best drumming that ever came out of anyone who wasn't Keith Moon.</p>

<p>Even though this is a very song-based album, the songs aren't where the true magic lies on this album. That magic is The Lake. I am prepared to declare that, barring <strong>Amarok</strong>, The Lake is the best piece of instrumental music that Mike ever did, better that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, <strong>Ommadawn</strong> or anything else. I love it that much. I love the way is snaps from peaceful start to rocking piece in no time at all, that funny bit after the rocky one with the sitar guitar and the beautiful solos, first acoustic then clean electric then distorted. I even like the 'tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu' section with Mike building a bit of tension with the funny vocals. Most of all, I love the ending. That clean guitar riff is just amazingly beautiful, and in duet with the acoustic it's just incomparable. Wow, that climaz really lift me up. Amazing.</p>

<p>Overall, The Lake is what turns this album from a good to a great one. At least 8.5 out of 10.</p>
</div>

<p>Carried away by a moonlight <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a>...</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="fields">The Killing Fields (1984)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>&Eacute;tude</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Pran's Theme</li>
  <li>Requiem For A City <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Evacuation <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Pran's Theme 2</li>
  <li>Capture</li>
  <li>Execution <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Bad News</li>
  <li>Pran's Departure</li>
  <li>Worksite</li>
  <li>The Year Zero</li>
  <li>Blood Sucking</li>
  <li>The Year Zero 2</li>
  <li>Pran's Escape / The Killing Fields</li>
  <li>The Trek</li>
  <li>The Boy's Burial / Pran Sees The Red Cross</li>
  <li>Good News</li>
  <li><span class="good">&Eacute;tude ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Curiousity: this is the third soundtrack album I review, the first two ones
being <strong>More</strong> and <strong>Obscured By Clouds</strong> by Pink
Floyd. One might argue that Queen's <strong>A Kind Of Magic</strong> is a
soundtrack, but it's not. Queen used the <em>Highlander</em> songs to make a
whole new album of their own, so it's no soundtrack. And there's <strong>Magical
Mystery Tour</strong>, too, but that's only partly a soundtrack. But this album,
<strong>The Killing Fields</strong>, <em>is</em> a full-fledged soundtrack album
for the movie - you guessed it - <em>The Killing Fields</em>. The movie is quite
sad and tragic, depicting the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, following the saga of
a journalist that is captured and taken to a worksite. I haven't seen the movie
myself, but I really wish to: many people say it's a superb film, and if I watch
it, be sure I'll let you know.</p>

<p>As of now, all I have is the soundtrack, written by mr Mike Oldfield in
person. Mike himself said that he wasn't used to making music for <em>other</em>
people, so this was kind of a new experience. Mike worked in the soundtrack for
six months, using mostly his Fairlight CMI machine, before going on tour. When
he came back, he found out the director, Roland Joffe, wanted more music - so
Mike asked for budget for a full orchestra and choir. Wow, talk about ambition.
Anyway, the album can be divided in two "parts": the Fairlight synth part and
the orchestral part. Not that they are drastically divided, each part in one
side of the album: they are interspersed, but it's clear which tracks feature
more of the Fairlight, and which tracks use the orchestral arrangements.</p>

<p>Anyway, what I can say is that this album is quite great - for a soundtrack
album. You know, Mike didn't try to make it into a "proper" album like Pink
Floyd did with <strong>More</strong>, much less with <strong>Obscured By
Clouds</strong>: there are no "songs" in here (well, only one), and the music is
very obviously movie-oriented. The orchestral parts use a lot of that familiar
Hollywood orchestra style, both in simple themes (like in 'Pran's Theme', which
is merely one stanza of the main theme played on strings) and in more
"elaborate" efforts, like 'The Trek' and 'The Boy's Burial'. I, personally, am
not the biggest fan of soundtrack music. Those movie clich&eacute;s kinda annoy
me, but if <em>you</em> are a fan of soundtrack music, you'll find plenty of
good stuff in here. The aforementioned 'Pran's Theme' is a beautiful melody, and
bits like 'Pran Sees The Red Cross' and 'Pran's Departure' are surprisingly well
written. Yeah, I mean, it's suprising that Mike handled so well the orchestra
soundtrack business in his first go. He probably spent some time listening to
other soundtrack records for research, but still, it's a honourable effort.</p>

<p>But alas, we have the "weirder" bits. Still in the orchestra section, we have
the creepy reverb-noise-fest 'Pran's Escape / The Killing Fields' and the
chill-inducing 'Requiem For A City', using a full choir. But the real... um,
"highlight" of the album are the Fairlight parts. Mike shows that he
<em>really</em> mastered the computer, and extracts lots of strange,
unpredictable sounds out of it. The big "showcases" for that are in side one:
'Evacuation' might sound merely like a set of synth loops, but darn, this stuff
is <em>creepy</em>. I would probably be scared as fuck listening to this while
watching the movie in full Cinemascope! 'Capture' is a shorter and a bit more
dynamic, and 'Execution' is the scariest of the lost: yes, <em>scariest</em>.
Mike succeeds in making a piece that sounds truly scary, and not cheesy: it
alternates the loud, shrieking, blasting horrible noises with the atonal
ramblings in the background, before slowly dissolving into an eerie atmosphere.
On side two, we have a big "suite" of mood pieces, that goes from tracks 9 to
12. 'The Year Zero' is a two-part piece contributed by David Bedford - wonder
why, because the piece is just a set of ascending-descending synth dischords.
'Worksite' reminds me a bit of Nick Mason's ramblings in
<strong>Ummagumma</strong>, but 'Blood Sucking' is truly surprising, combining
sound effects with an "ethnic" percussion section to a truly disturbing effect.
And there's more stuff, like the two synth tunes 'Good News' and 'Bad News', and
'&Eacute;tude': now this is a wonderful one. It is a rearrangement of a Spanish
piece for Classical guitar, that had a very Cambodian vibe, at least for Mike.
I dunno, this piece sounds very Spanish to me, but anyway. Mike plays the piece
using his Fairlight CMI and a comination of odd percussion effects, a
marimba-like arpeggio and a strange, pan-flute-like synth lead sound. The result
is superb. Fans of Mike's instrumental songs can't get away without this
one.</p>

<p>This album is really only recommended to <em>real</em> fans of Mike, who want
to know all facets of Mike's skills. And really, Mike shows a lot of talent in
this album. It's not everyday you can find a musician like Mike Oldfield, going
through this poppiest phase, that can pull off such an unusual, strange, and
beautiful record. It's not an <em>essential</em> purchase, and if your knowledge
limits itself only to <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> and
<strong>Ommadawn</strong>, you might want to get other albums, first. But I
really enjoy this album, and that's saying much more than what I can say about,
say, <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>. Not the kind of thing I would listen to
everyday, you know - I still can't fully enjoy the soundtrack style of tracks
like 'The Trek' and 'The Boy's Burial / Pran Sees The Red Cross', but this one
deserves a relatively high rating, yes it does!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>11/15</strong></big> - Yeah, I can say this album keeps me entertained.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - It <em>does</em> create images in my mind - not the most pleasant images, of course.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Well, it does have all that soundtrack clich&eacute; on it... but you can't go wrong with 'Evacuation'.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>11/15</strong></big> - Yup, good stuff.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - It doesn't conceal the fact that it is a soundtrack album, after all.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/10.png" alt="10" />
</p>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me?</a></p>

<hr />

<h2 id="islands">Islands (1987)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>The Wind Chimes</big><em>, or </em><big>Flying Start</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>The Wind Chimes, parts 1 and 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Islands</li>
  <li>Flying Start <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>North Point</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Magic Touch &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Time Has Come</li>
  <li>When The Night's On Fire</li>
</ol>

<p>What's this? The beginning of Mike's decline? Well... it <em>should</em> have
been. Mike's back to the <strong>Crises</strong> formula, that is: long
instrumental piece in one side, pop songs in the other side. "So what?" the
reader says. "Mike already proved that he's a good musician, and showed lots of
skill in the aforementioned <strong>Crises</strong> and many other times,
<em>both</em> with instrumental pieces and pop songs. He can pull it off!" Well,
I say, he certainly could. But he didn't. And why? Well, I don't know, but my
guess is that Mike tried a new style here - instead of the dreamy, glossy pop
of <strong>Crises</strong> and <strong>Discovery</strong>, he tried something
grand, bombastic and artistic. Seriously, this stuff is OVERBLOWN, as in POMPOUS
TO THE EXTREME!!!. Er... maybe not TO THE EXTREME!!!, but there is certainly no
<strong>Moonlight Shadow</strong> at all here.</p>

<p>And, sadly, there's no Maggie Reilly at all here, either. History says that
she got fed up with working with Mike, maybe because of the lack of recognition
she got. And, really, imagine what it must feel like supplying those WONDERFUL
vocals to 'Moonlight Shadow' and seeing the single coming out with the name
"MIKE OLDFIELD" very big on the cover, and no signs of "Maggie Reilly" at all.
And you may think it is a joke, but there <em>are</em> people who get puzzled
with that, thinking that either Mike has a very lady-like voice, or is a woman
with a guy's name. But anyway, we get here Anita Hegherland taking up Maggie's
role. And while she doesn't have that dreamy, silky yet powerful voice, she's a
great singer in all respects. And my problem isn't with the singers, not at all:
it's really with the songs. See here, this album has 'Magic Touch', by far the
most dreadful song to appear in a Mike Oldfield album. It's a cheesy "powerful"
rocker with very, very annoying vocals (Max Bacon in the UK release - in the US
release, he was replaced by Jim Price, but I have no idea how much that changes
things) and just about every element you can find in an awful power ballad.
Maybe the song <em>isn't</em> that bad, but I definitely can't stand it. The
other songs... well, to be quite frank, there's only one song here that I truly,
genuinely <em>like</em>: 'Flying Start' is a damn near perfect pop song, with
Kevin Ayers taking up the vocals. In fact, the song <em>is</em> dedicated to
him, and his deep, low vocals really give the song a special spice. The chorus
is as catchy as it can be, and that "fake sitar" riff only makes things better.
The repeat-ad-nauseum finale gets on my nerves a bit, but hey, the song is very
beautiful. And the others?</p>

<p>Well, I guess my problem is with the sticky pomposity that's spread all over
these songs. 'Islands' has <em>BONNIE TYLER</em> in the vocals. Yes, you read
that right: <em>THAT</em> Bonnie Tyler on the vocals. And the song is pretty
much what you would expect from a power ballad with Bonnie Tyler on the vocals.
If you listen to 'Total Eclipse From The Heart' and imagine a "happy" version of
it with a bit of orchestration, there you have it: "WE ARE ISLANDS BUT NEVER TOO
FAR, WE ARE IIIIIISLANDS", sing in that scratchy, choke-inducing voice that we
all love so much. You know, the song does have a good melody. But I think that
Mike was truly aiming for something grandiose here. But the biggest offender is
'When The Night's On Fire', which "recapitulates" the melody of the title track
(*groan*), and makes it into an even longer, even bigger monster - but this
time, it's Anita on the lead vocals, so you won't have the urge to clean your
throat with every verse. The other two songs, fortunately, are quite likeable.
'North Point' is Mike's attempt at a sorrowful, depressing ballad about a couple
separated by one's imprisonment. But can you imagine how successful that
"sorrow" must be, given all this overproduction? Eh, I dunno. 'The Time Has
Come', at least, tries to have a <em>reason</em> to be pompous. The lyrics must
be about Jesus, I suppose ("the child was born to be a king"), and there's just
something very nifty about that main melody. On the other hand, there's NOTHING
nifty about that awful effect they apply on Anita's voice. I mean, why make her
sound like an android? Still, the song is good enough.</p>

<p>You know, it might be a sad affair that I started this review talking about
the pop side, when there was an instrumental composition on the other side,
waiting to be reviewed. Not that there's a particular <em>reason</em> for that,
but the truth is that 'The Wind Chimes', to Mike Oldfield's standards, is just
a "good" piece; and that means "not as good as 'Crises', better than 'The Lake',
way better than 'Taurus II'." And what makes it better than 'The Lake' is that
this song is pretty much the beginning of a new composing style for Mike:
instead of the gradual, "logical" progression of one theme into another, what
Mike presents here is a real musical jig-saw. The melodies and motifs are
scattered all over the place, and slowly put together in various combinations,
until the bigger picture starts to appear. It's really interesting to see these
melodies being combined and overlapped, creating something of a mental landscape
of music. The piece does kick off in a fairly strange manner, with radically
different sections breaking into one another, hinting at "ethnic" sounds and
such, until it hits a climax in the middle. The second half is almost a "mirror"
image of the first, reprising the melodies and, again, slowly putting together
a bigger whole that's finally complete in a <em>gorgeous</em>, wonderful climax.
I dunno why, but I simply love that ending. You may notice that it sounds
somewhat similar to 'When The Nights On Fire', but if only the latter were as
good as that...!</p>

<p>But there are a few reasons of concern: the production is scarily "plastic",
with cheesy synth sounds all over the place. There's still Mike's blessed guitar
to lead the way, but those synthesizers are quite icky, at times. Still, the
piece gives much more focus to the <em>writing</em> rather than the
<em>playing</em> (a la <strong>Ommadawn</strong>), so an "organic" sound is
really not necessary. What DOES irk me quite a lot is the beginning and the
ending, where Mike makes a totally ridiculous, jaw-droppingly inadequate
orchestral arrangement over a banal, meaningless melody. You know, that melody
<em>would</em> become a crucial part of the composition as a whole, but taken
on its own, and given such a bombastic "orchestral" approach, it becomes moronic
insteead. I just HATE those tubular bells ringing solemnly, and the loud getting
louder AND LOUDER <em>AND LOUDER</em> ultimate chord at the end of the track.
Bleh, just bleh.</p>

<p>The bottom line: this is one of his weakest 80's efforts. At the very least,
I can call it an "effort" because I feel Mike was genuinely <em>trying</em> to
make something solid. Overall, I don't think you should bother with this album
unless you've got all the better ones already. Definitely get
<strong>Discovery</strong> before this one, but then again, the final choice
will be all up to you. You're a free man, aren't you?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/15</strong></big> - I have to balance the good stuff and the bad stuff somehow.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Meh, the songs in side two are <em>way</em> too overblown.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>11/10</strong></big> - I give 'The Wind Chimes' a lot of credit. The pop songs, though, are almost plainly generic.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/10</strong></big> - 'The Wind Chimes' sticks out again. And there <em>are</em> good melodies on side 2.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/10</strong></big>  - Eh?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/10.png" alt="10" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 3, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>OK, <strong>Islands</strong>. This is not one of my favourite Mike Oldfield albums, in fact it may be my least favourite, or at least one of. You'll see why as I go through the tracks.</p>
 
<p>The Wind Chimes is an interesting one, quite unlike any other long intrumentals he's ever done, with more keyboards and less quitars than normal. Unlike you I don't mind the beginning, but I don't feel it suits the rest of the track. After that it really kicks in, with the funny breathy pan-pipey thing playing a killer melody being one of the highlights. I love the first climax here about halfway through, with the tune that (I think) re-appears in <strong>Amarok</strong> as the son-de-la theme. Unfortunately here it sort of falls away: there isn't anything from here on that I find memorable. </p>
 
<p>So that's it for the instrumental, now on to the songs. The songs don't start out too bad. Islands is quite a decent song, Bonnie Tyler's voice really suits it, the lyrics are alright, overall it's an above average piece of 80s pop. The next song, Flying Start, is a VERY above average 80s song. I love it! That amazing opening riff and the great chorus, fantastic. One of his very best songs. However, like The Wind Chimes, the songs start to fall away here, except much more drastically. North Point is acceptable, not too memorable but Anita Hegerland's voice sends shivers up your spine. Likewise, the thought of ever hearing Magic Touch again sends something up my spine, but it's more likely to be a wave of blinding fear. I totally agree with you that this song is appalling, nasty and EVIL. The less said about this the better, and I'm sure you'll agree. The Time has Come and When the Night's on Fire are not exactly bad, but they just aren't memorable at all.  I hate the way that When the Night's on Fire rips off the title track: I wouldn't mind but by this time I've had to sit through the whole album and I'm probably in a bad mood.</p>
 
<p>Overall, this is a very dissapointing follow-up to <strong>Discovery</strong>. The instrumental is just above-average, and one nice and one good song can't save horrible 80s pop nothing songs. The only reason I'm even reviewing this is that it was playing in the car on the way to the movies (we saw Shrek II, really good film. Much better than this album). The worst thing is, this album was released the year I was born! I'm sure I'm better than this!!! I won't commit to a rating, but it would be lucky if it gets 5 out of 10.</p>
</div>

<p><big><big><big>SEX!!</big></big></big> Now that I caught your attention, <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail your ideas.</a></p>

<hr />

<h2 id="moving">Earth Moving (1989)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Holy</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Holy <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Hostage <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Far Country</li>
  <li>Innocent <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Runaway Son <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>See The Light</li>
  <li>Earth Moving <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Blue Night</li>
  <li>Nothing But / Bridge To Paradise</li>
</ol>

<p>Ow, jinkies. Crikey. Janey Mack. Is this a low point or what? Is this a
motherfuckin' SELL OUT for Mike? Well, no. Mike would only sell out in the 90's.
See, this is the moment when Mike finally gave in to Virgin's pressure and
released a full-blown, completely pop record. Yes, that's right: you've got 10
songs here, and NOT A SINGLE one is an instrumental. They're all radio friendly
pop! All of them! And indeed, this is the <em>only</em> Mike Oldfield album
entirely made of pop songs. You know, I don't have any problem with Mike doing
pop music. After all, Mike's pop efforts gave us gems like 'Moonlight Shadow',
'In High Places' and singles like 'Pictures In The Dark'. My problem comes when
Mike starts doing pop music <em>like this</em>. And I'll explain exactly what
makes this the worst 80's Mike Oldfield album, and one of his weakest ever.</p>

<p>See, remember when I said that <strong>Islands</strong> was Mike
<em>trying</em> to make a solid effort? Well, here, I don't think he's even
trying. These songs are <em>completely</em> taken over by synthesizers and
cheesy keyboards. There are no real drums, no real bass, no real rhythms. I'd
say about 60% of each track are just keyboards. Mike still plays his lead
guitars, there are just a few real instruments sprayed through these songs, and
the vocals are handled by dozens of different singers - most of them are those
generic scream-until-your-lungs-explode 80's singers that we all know so well.
And the songs themselves?... Well, you know, I'd really like to listen to these
songs given a <em>good</em> production to see if they would improve. But as it
is, this isn't any better than your most generic 80's cheesy music taken
straight from the <em>Top Gun</em> soundtrack. This record was dated the moment
it was released, already. And this is one thing that SEVERELY bugs me: many,
many times in the past, Mike was scarily ahead of his time. And either he was
WAY out-of-touch with the reality around him at that time, or he just had the
wrong idea of what kind of music was "hot" back then. I don't know, I'm just
speculating. Fact is, his album is almost <em>awful</em> in that respect.</p>

<p>But to be very fair, there's a decent amount of good material here. You'll
just have to get over the annoying singers and awful synthetic production to
really appreciate them. There's only <em>one</em> song here that's great in
almost all respects, and it's the opening track, 'Holy'. I guess I can get over
the arrangements in this case just because the melody is so good, but... do you
know who's the singer for this track? Can you even GUESS? It's ADRIAN BELEW!
Yes, the same guy who was playing with King Crimson! And his heavenly voice is
an absolute blessing in an album like this. I can only wonder how it would have
been if Adrian sung all tracks here, heh heh. And he's also present in 'Far
Country', but this time playing a guitar solo with Mike. But then,
unfortunately, five seconds of Adrian soloing can't salvage this song. In its
very core, I guess the melody is beautiful, but THIS kind of treatment can take
even the most gorgeous melodies in the universe, bring out all the sap within
them and turn them into something monstrously disgusting. I wouldn't be
surprised if, aside from the vocals and the guitars, EVERYTHING in this song was
done by pre-programmed keyboards.</p>

<p>The low points, though, are way lower than that. 'Hostage' is awful, though
not as awful as 'Magic Touch' (though I'm in doubt about that). Maybe it's got
to do with that Max Bacon guy handling the vocals and the faux-Freddie-Mercury
he pulls off at times. But then, it's got to do with that excruciatingly ugly
attempt at "rocking" done with cheesy synth-brass stabs, a twice-as-cheesy
melody and thrice-as-cheesy lyrics. Yeurgh. 'Innocent' is... oh, geeze. Anita
Hegherland sings lead vocals here, but Mike somehow transforms her into a
crossover of early Madonna and Cindy Lauper. The melody is pretty much
worthless, and OH GODDAMN THAT BOPPY SYNTHY pop thing from Hell. Yucky yucky. I
think the only salvation is that, in spite of being truly bad, the lyrics are
about Mike's daughter, so it's not a generic, sappy lovey dovey thing. Imagine
the horror! The title track, then, is a grotesque attempt at adult contemporary
- in fact, most of these tracks ARE attempts at adult contemporary, though not
<em>grotesque</em>. This one has next to no melody at all and screaming vocals
aplenty. Dammit dammit dammit, I <em>really</em> don't need this.</p>

<p>The other tracks are, at very least, passable. My favourites include 'Runaway
Son', which is just a funny, innofensive jolly pop tune. There are strange,
funny voiceovers on it, and brass parts and all. And somehow, the song
entertains me quite a bit. 'Blue Night' is a sweet ballad, if only because it
brings back Maggie Reilly from the dead. Give this song to the 'Earth Moving'
singer and you've got garbage - give it to Maggie Reilly and you've got a
potential "soft" version of 'Moonlight Shadow'. Amazing, eh? I don't really love
the song all that much, but Mike avoids making it bad and makes it ok. And if
it's ok, that's ok. 'See The Light' is just a lame, pale rewrite of 'Discovery'
and, needless to say, it's pretty weak. The singer avoids making a dick out of
himself, but he can hardly make the song any better. And then we have 'Nothing
But Slash Bridge To Paradise'. Seriously, I <em>still</em> don't quite know why
the two songs are indexed in one track: there's NO segue in between them, and
they have nothing to do with each other at all. Was it an idiotic move to make
an eight minute track and fool hardcore fans? If it is, it's an AWFUL move. The
songs, well... 'Nothing But' is a ballad every bit as generic as any other
ballad here, with a "pleasant" sound completely ruined with overblown
arrangements. 'Bridge To Paradise' SURPRISINGLY does not suck. I mean, with a
title like that, I was PREPARED to take a long, bombastic anthem that puts 'When
The Night's On Fire' to shame, and with 'Nothing But' "built-in", it was
certainly going to be a medley. But it isn't! 'Bridge To Paradise' is a catchy,
boppy tune, and better: Max Bacon is the lead singer, and he DOES NOT SUCH
either!! Amazing. The lyrics are atrocious ("this town is just a fake / a place
where you can't tell the Devil from your brother!!"), but the song itself is
nifty enough to be enjoyable. Quite an amazing feat, even. And the "chorale"
ending is tasteful.</p>

<p>So, in the end, I'm undecided whether to give it a green or an yellow rating.
I mean, this is a totally unessential album, and only recommended to the true
fan. There isn't anything in the album that really would make me give this LP as
a gift to a friend, you know. There are quite good songs here, but I think there
is <em>too much</em> stuff I dislike. So, in the end, only 'Holy', 'Runaway Son'
and 'Bridge To Paradise' are salvageable, in my humble opinion. So I can fish
those songs outta here and make a compilation, or something. And since those
songs aren't available in compilations, fans will probably need the album to
have their collection complete (even though this is a frequent winner in "worst
album" polls). If you really don't want to waste money, download the best songs
from the Internet and send the rest to hell. I mean, you're not really afraid of
the RIAA, are you? And you don't feel pity for the artists, do you? Look here,
Mike Oldfield is 500 times as rich as you and me, so don't come with that "don't
steal from the artist" talk over me. I have more important things to care about.
And you?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - Well... I do enjoy some stuff here quite a bunch.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Some songs are <em>just</em> fun enough to warrant an "above average" rating here.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Derivative. Need I say more?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Well, the melodies are not rotten.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - The good and the crap keep alternating, you never can fully sink in.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/07.png" alt="7" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (January 23, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>My comment concerns your continual discussion of Mike 'selling out'. All through your reviews of the pop song albums from the late 80s, you keep saying that he wasn't selling out, for example from the <strong>Earth Moving</strong> review:" Mike didn't sell out until 1992, and he was just trying to collaborate with his label, Virgin." Are we using the same definition of 'selling out' here? When he made <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>, who exactly was he selling out to? His label? Then what's the difference between this and writing pop songs for <strong>Earth Moving</strong>? Yes, he changed, and yes, you don't like the change, but selling out? I don't think so.</p>

<p><span class="edNote">[editor's note: Well, I don't think it will be any useful if I said that I wasn't completely serious saying that. And I <em>was</em>, anyway. I <em>do</em> see a difference between the "sell-out" of <strong>Earth Moving</strong> and the "sell-out" of <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>. On the former, he was obviously under pressure of Sir Richard Branson to release something pop, and that was the best he could do. On the latter, though, he <em>did</em> "sell out" by his own will: he sold out to the critics' wishes, to the public's desires. It was obvious that releasing <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> would be a great commercial move, and Mike <em>was</em> aware of that. He did that because it was easy, because it <em>would</em> sell, and because people <em>would</em> recognise "Tubular Bells". You might want to argue about the artistic merits of the album, but therw WAS a strong commercial motivation behind it all, and this time, it WASN'T pressure from Sir Richard Branson. He did it all. Now, I'm not trying to say Mike <em>never</em> thought about sales and money, but I fail to see any kind of commercial motivation from HIS part when he released <strong>Amarok</strong>, for example. The difference between these albums is CLEAR, to my eyes.]</span></p>
</div>

<p>You're a hostage of your <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a>.</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="amarok" class="best">Amarok (1990)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>There's only one!</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Amarok ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Well... how to say this in a way that doesn't make it too obvious? Say, Mike
was apparently tired of working for Virgin. REALLY tired. The pressure over him
was probably becoming very frustrating, especially since <strong>Earth
Moving</strong> sold poorly and was <em>also</em> neglected by the label, even
if it <em>was</em> the pop album they were requesting. So, what happened here is
that Mike finally gave up trying and went back to his roots. And not only he
<em>did</em> pull off a major instrumental work, but he pulled off his biggest,
wackiest, most challenging and most grossly uncommercial album ever. Indeed, his
intention was to <em>truly</em> piss off Virgin by going completely against
their expectations. And what do we get?</p>

<p>We've got one of Mike's most controversial albums, for sure. See, the
composing style presented here is mainly an extension from that of 'The Wind
Chimes' - difficult, complex, challenging and difficult to get on first listens.
But not only it's all that, but it's also ONE HOUR LONG, indexed entirely in one
track, written and recorded to make it virtually impossible for someone to
extract a single off of it. But it's not just "complex": it's utterly
unpredictable, unstable, and almost insane at times. Many sections here are not
"developed" the way you expected them to, and they simply lead into something
completely different - and when the parts <em>are</em> being developed, they're
invaded by obtrusive, almost grating noises and loud dischords. In essence, this
is <strong>Hergest Ridge</strong> and <strong>Incantations</strong> slammed
together in one thing and inverted.</p>

<p>And why is it controversial? Well, because the album's very <em>essence</em>
is completely deceiving to most people. The album just keeps throwing your
expectations on the ground and spitting on them, and fooling you around with
jokes and unexpected detours. But <em>me</em>? Well, I've always been a fan of
Mike's cheeky sense of humour expressed in his music, and this album is chock
full of it. But the truth is, this album isn't deceiving, complicated and
difficult just as a gimmick. <strong>Amarok</strong> is simply one of the
rawest, most brutally <em>human</em> albums I've ever heard. Whenever I listen
to it, it feels like being transported into Mike's brain - and every intricacy,
every rough edge and sharp thorn in the way is a musical reflex of Mike's own
human flaws and traumas. This album succeeds extraodrinarily in expressing
Mike's feelings at the time, only without lyrics. If you take every single
"imperfection", all the ugliness and all deformities as a <em>natural</em> part
of the landscape, it will be very easy to relate to this album - you can also
bring your <em>own</em> imprefections and realise how natural they are.</p>

<p>And it also helps that the album is almost 90% hand-played. Synthesizers?
Forget about them! Though there <em>are</em> synths being used here, they're
VERY restrained, and used primarily for soft texture and atmosphere. They almost
never steal the spotlight and get in the way of the natural instruments. Ooh!
The instruments! There are LOTS of them! Mike plays all sorts of things, from
"normal" instruments like piano, mandolin and xylophone to a wide range of
percussion, finishing with completely strange, random objects like toothbrush,
aeromodeller's tools, punchbag and club, fake fireworks, door and face slap.
And, of course, there are guitars; LOADS of guitars; guitars of all kinds. This
is possibly Mike's most guitar-heavy album ever, and I'm talking of electric
guitar just as well as acoustic, twelve-string, Spanish, mandolin, bazouki,
banjo and whatever else you can play with a plectrum. While the album isn't
filled with long guitar solos, what truly makes the album shine is the thick,
complex <em>guitarwork</em> in it - several layers of dialoguing guitars playing
in harmony, different kinds of guitars alternating while playing a single
melody. small passages of guitar that lead into something radically different,
well, basically <em>everything</em> that Mike can do with guitars is here!</p>

<p>Notice how much I talked about the album already, and I haven't even
discussed the music <em>writing</em> yet... and well, I didn't talk about it yet
for a good reason - if I start talking about the melodic content of the album,
I'll never stop. There's SO MUCH stuff going on here, you'll hardly believe it
if I tell you. But what's most amazing is that there are very few "complete"
melodies here. As in 'The Wind Chimes', what Mike has here mainly are
half-melodies and half-themes, and they're combined with each other in many,
many different ways. And those few "half-melodies" Mike brings here are just
simply <em>gorgeous</em>, as in God-like. Honestly. Seriously, this album has
some of Mike's greatest melodies <em>ever</em>. However, you just can't come to
this album <em>expecting</em> to hear those barebone melodies, you know! What
truly will grab your attention here is the way the instruments NEVER stop
interacting - be it in a soothing, quiet passage or in a loud, intricate groove,
there's <em>always</em> stuff going on. The music just plainly never stops. The
repetitive, mantraic passages are very few, and they are nowhere as long as they
were on <strong>Incantations</strong>, that's for sure. And even then, those
drawn-out sections are constantly spiced and enhanced by little embellishments
and stuff. But the real meat of the album are the non-mantraic sections, with
dozens of different melodies playing side by side, by drastically different
instruments, and the way they are alternated with stunningly simple, gorgeous
quieter passages.</p>

<p>And the style of music? Well... to give you a hint, the album
<em>started</em> as a continuation of <strong>Ommadawn</strong>. But as you can
guess, Mike changed the plans as he went further. So, don't even THINK of
getting the album expecting to hear an <strong>Ommadawn</strong> soundalike. The
album just borrows the instruments and the places the music draws inspiration
from. For example: the Celtic roots are still present here, there's a bit of
Folk, and quite a lot of African music too. But they're "combined" pretty much
the same way that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> combined those musical
influences, as in - you just can't label this at all, simply because those
styles are even MORE jumbled and mixed together into something utterly
unrecognisable and unique. Mike also brings a tad of Spanish music, his
"experimental" spirit from the 70's and his sense of humour. Listening to the
album, it really does sound like each and every little piece of music was
carefully written and designed beforehand, but the final product has so much
energy, verve and <em>human</em> emotions that the album sounds FAR from
cold.</p>

<p>I've been giving all this boring talk because I just hate raving on and on
about this album. Wouldn't it just suck if I was spitting half-phrases of love
and worship for Mike Oldfield all over this review? You know, I have to control
myself a little this time around because I simply <em>adore</em> this record.
<strong>Amarok</strong> isn't simply Mike's masterpiece and his best album; it's
also one of my favourite albums <em>ever</em>, as in "one of the two records
that are way, way above the rest of my entire collection". Why? Possibly because
this is one of the grandest musical achievements of the 20th Century? Seriously,
people, how am I <em>supposed</em> to claim that something like
<strong>Revolver</strong> can even approach the level of genius, stunning beauty
and imperfect perfection of <strong>Amarok</strong>? What, the Beatles? Those
guys who churned out albums so grandiose as <strong>Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club Band</strong> out of pure, unadultered, selfish ambition? How can I put
them next to Mike Oldfield, that lonesome, sensitive fellow how expressed his
raw personal feelings into music as if his life <em>depended</em> on it? Really,
folks. You should know reading the reviews below that I don't tread Mike like
some sort of deity, and I don't even <em>like</em> him the way most fans do. For
the previous albums, my relationship towards Mike as an artist was probably a
deep admiration of his skills. But <em>here</em>, I guess it goes beyond simple
"admiration". I can only proclaim this album as something almost larger than my
own life, and seriously, I can't find <em>any</em> other album that can match
this album's intense, overwhelming emotional impact, being exhilarating <em>all
the way through</em>, surprising me with every listen, revealing new layers
every time I revisit it, and blowing me away with originality, creativity and
plain, absolute beauty.</p>

<p>Can I go mentioning individual parts? Eh, if I had to mention every single
individual part that stands out, I'd talk about roughly 75% of the album. It's
suffice to say that this album, like no other, can build tension, inflate
itself, burst into a climax and counterbalance it immediately afterwards with
something lightweight, funny or just self-deprecating. Every burst of
self-importance is justified and in place, and suddenly deflated with cleverness
and unpredictability... Gah, if I just mention one indivual part, I'll never be
able to stop. Suffice to say, there's a fast Spanish "waltz" in the middle of
the first half of the album, featuring Spanish guitar and an <em>insanely</em>
fast electric guitar solo in it. It's been argued that the guitar was sped up
after recording, but if it <em>wasn't</em>, then Mike's a definitive guitar God.
Really, it's nowhere near "shredding" or anything - it's just a delightfully
funny, tricky guitar solo that gets me every time. The first half of the album
mellows out with a wonderful little piano looping riff (not at all
Tubular-Bellish, if you understand me), accompanied by a stunningly gorgeous,
soft melody on piano. And on the second half, the melody reappears under a
wonderful faux-Reggae rhythm, and the ensuing climax just gives me all sorts
of shivers. And <em>then</em>, the African drums kick in, a chorale starts to
sing, and the album just razes me to the ground. The last third or so of the
album is entirely played with those African rhythms on the background, and even
though the music gets really grandiose at times, it's <em>never</em> overblown
or self-important. You can really feel Mike becoming <em>one</em> with all those
people and turning it into a celebration instead of an Earth-shattering artistic
statement. The first part is quite upbeat, and filled with those wacky twists
(like a scarily loud guitar grumble, a telephone ringing and "picked up" by the
Piltdown Man, and a message in Morse code being spelled out by a synthesizer -
by the way, it says "Fuck off RB", and you certainly can guess who R.B. is).
The second "part" of the African bit slows the rhythm down a bit, and gives us
what I consider to be, by far, <em>the greatest moment in Mike Oldfield music
ever.</em> It's a kind of recapitulation of the finale of part 1 of
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, yes, but... dammit! The major-key bass riff
kicks in, and then there's that stunning soft melody again... it's a very soft,
but gut-wrenching moment of tension before everything goes quiet, except for the
drums... and the tubular bells finally ring in all their glory. Just listen to
that part to see what I mean. You won't understand it if I just speak it.</p>

<p>But as grandiose and smashing that part is, that's not how the album ends.
After all, the fast African drums kick back, and Margaret Thatcher gives us a
speech. Yes, you read that right. Well... actually, it's actress Janet Brown,
but she <em>does</em> a hilariously inane Margaret Thatcher speech, and it's so
grossly out-of-place, inadequate and breaks the tension so drastically, it's
absolute genius. Nowhere else in the album you'll see <em>such</em> a radical
distraction, and it comes like Mike's ultimate joke. And instead of a pompous,
bombastic, universalistic climax of an ending, we get the African chorales
singing a religious Zulu chant, or something, as the final, definitive melody
of the album is stated. Even though it <em>is</em> the grand climax that
finishes the album for good, rarely we get such a positive, unpretentious and
<em>sincere</em> climax from Mike.</p>

<p>As tempting as it is, I just can't go around telling everyone to rush out and
get this album ASAP because, want it or not, it <em>is</em> Mike's "hardest
album to get into" (even though I got into it almost at once), and some of the
distractions of this album can be really frustrating and off-putting to some
people. But I'm firmly sure that this album deserves a bit of effort from the
listener to accept the album for <em>what it is</em>, not for what the album
"should" be, or what he <em>wanted</em> it to be. If we have to accept each
other's flaws and imperfections, that's <em>exactly</em> what we have to do with
this album - after all, this is pretty much Mike Oldfield himself in musical
form. Anyway, get <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> first, maybe get
<strong>Ommadawn</strong> and see if it will make you want to burn all your
other albums because they're so "inferior", and <em>then</em> get this one and
make up your mind. For the veterans, who had their share of <strong>Trout Mask
Replica</strong>, <strong>Faust</strong> and <strong>Ummagumma</strong>, this
one should be a piece of cake. After all, <strong>Amarok</strong> is
<em>far</em> from "avantgarde" - it's just a really clever, really humane,
really outstanding album for those who think that music is more than just notes.
Get it and try to love it as much as I do. It's a challenge!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>15/15</strong></big> - The album never lets me down. Absolutely never.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - The emotional resonance here transcends rating. Ergh, this is a dorky thing to say.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Eh? You know, I just never heard any album that even remotely resembles this!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Do I need to say anything here?<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - It <em>must</em> be enjoyed in its entirety, and it <em>is</em> perfectly enjoyable in its entirety.<br /><br />
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Bonuses: <strong>+1</strong></big> - It's one of the two albums to get the 16 rating. It fully deserves it.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/16.png" alt="16" /><img src="images/and16.png" alt="16" />
</p>

<p>May the <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">mail</a> be with you!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="open">Heaven's Open (1991)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Music From The Balcony</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Make Make</li>
  <li><span class="good">No Dream ++</span></li>
  <li>Mr. Shame <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Gimme Back <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Heaven's Open ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Music From The Balcony ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>As we know, amazing as it was, <strong>Amarok</strong> was primarily designed
to be a pratical joke on Richard Branson and his label. But he still had one
last album to released before his contract came to an end. So, you might be
tempted that this album was pulled off as quickly and cheaply as possible. And,
yes, to some extent, that is the case.</p>

<p>But this wasn't just the "cheap" album to get Mike out of his contract. In a
way, this is Mike's final laugh, the final joke, the <em>true</em> end of his
Virgin saga. But instead of going out with a bang, he... he kinda made this
album in a way of <em>not being recognised</em>. The album is credited to
<em>Michael Oldfield</em>, on the front cover, and it's produced by <em>Thom
Newman</em>. Though I can't tell whether Mike was trying to sneak this album to
not call attention, or if he didn't want the album to be linked to the Mike
Oldfield legacy - and that makes me think this album was a reason of shame for
Mike. Wonder why? Here's why! The album is a return to the
<strong>Crises</strong> formula, with one instrumental side-long composition,
and another side filled with pop tunes. In this album it's the other way around,
though: 'Music From The Balcony' is on side B, and the songs are on side A. But
that's not the main thing! See here: Mike Oldfield himself sings lead vocals in
<em>all</em> five pop songs. And if you remember his "Crises! Crises" whine of
1983, you may feel a bit uncomfortable with that. But don't! His singing is very
solid here. Apparently he was taking singing lessons at the time, and his voice
here is very powerful and mighty, even though his range is fairly limited, and
his intonation is set on "ANGSTY YELL" most of the time. But come on! I don't
consider him any inferior to Barry Palmer, for example. And his singing here
actually makes me <em>wish</em> he had sung lead vocals on
<strong>Discovery</strong> and especially <strong>Earth Moving</strong>,
replacing all those generic 80's shriekers.</p>

<p>What gets me about this album is how hated/despised/overlooked it is, even
amongst the most rabit fans. I consider this a shame, because I really like this
album. No, seriously: I <em>really</em> like this album. It's up there with
<strong>Crises</strong>! First, let's talk about the songs. They're all generic
pop, yes, it's true. But at very least, this is <em>way</em> better than most
songs on <strong>Islands</strong> and <strong>Earth Moving</strong>, and for
generic pop, they're <em>solidly</em> written. All of them have catchy hooks,
you know! After all, Mike <em>did</em> become a solid pop songwriter by this
time, and the production isn't taken over completely by cheap keyboards and
stuff. Yes, they <em>are</em> mostly dominated by synthesizers, but they don't
sound <em>that</em> cheap, and we've got Simon Philips on drums, we've got MORE
real guitars, there are backing vocalists and REAL organs and pianos and stuff.
Sounds good, eh? Indeed!</p>

<p>Firstly, 'Make Make' and 'Mr. Shame' are as basic and predictable as they
could be, but I can't help but love them. Both of them are <em>very</em> direct,
unsubtle and almost BLATANT criticisms at (respectively) Virgin and Richard
Branson himself, and they're all grim, minor key and all. Reading these lyrics
leaves NO doubts at how bitter Mike was feeling, and how <em>seriously</em> he
took the entire affair. And he was never a gifted songwriter and anything, and
between having the poetic "masterpieces" of <strong>Earth Moving</strong>
("Speak to me like the very first speak") and having these pissed-off, obvious
attacks at the establishment ("Who cares what you feel? This is not the place
for high ideals!"), I pick the latter. And the music? Well, 'Make Make' kicks
off the album in a fairly low note, actually. It's got that dancey synthy rhythm
(not exactly <em>upbeat</em>, but funky enough) with angsty vocals and whatnot.
The melody is solid enough, but it's not as catchy as the other stuff. 'Mr.
Shame', though, is fine! It's midtempo, organ driven and has MORE angsty vocals,
and that chorus is just <em>so</em> obvious but <em>SO</em> goddamn catchy, I
just can't resist, and just have to sing "come down to the river, river of
love!" whatever that means.</p>

<p>But the meaty stuff is yet to come. 'Gimme Back' is a return to
<em>reggae</em> - of course, it's that kind of electric reggae that Europeans
often do, but... that keyboard hook! And those goofy vocals! This is obviously
Mike pleading for Richard Branson to give back all parts of his body, since he
was ready to leave the label and he just can't go out in the street with his
hair, his face, his feet and his vision missing, can he? He has common sense,
people, kudos to Mike! The two remaining tracks, though, are what truly make
these 23 minutes of pop music justified. 'No Dream' is fantastic - slow,
plodding, EXTRA ANGSTY and grim and angry, almost desperate. Mike adopts a low
hushed voice for the song, until it bursts into his usual yells for the final
verses, and the whole song bursts into an anthem of hopelessness and fear, with
a guitar tone that Mike never used, and would never use again! Wow, what a good
song. Great melody, great performance, great guitar solo! And for the grand
finale, the title track is just... gorgeous. It easily ranks as one of Mike's
greatest pop songs ever. It has <em>all</em> the melodies to be awfully
saccharine and disgusting: the tinkly piano intro, the dippy lyrics, the
"uplifting" vibe, the chorus... but it's nowhere near saccharine! Somehow, Mike
pulls it off and makes it absolutely stunning and awe-inspiring. It's bright,
joyous, and explodes in those bombastic, grandiose climaxes of happiness that
simply come off naturally, not at all contrived and/or forced. But do you know
what's the most amazing thing, in my opinion? It's just the way Mike has to make
a song that talks about some divine power, some kind of enlightment, ascension
to a new level of existance, "heaven's open, fly right in!", when in fact, he's
talking about moving into a new label! Isn't that just... unbelievable?</p>

<p>Now, on to side B. 'Music From The Balcony' is simply an unique item in
Mike's catalogue. No, really: it makes 'Platinum', 'Taurus II' and 'The Wind
Chimes' sound like the same song. In essence, this is the culmination of the
composing style that began in 'The Wind Chimes' and produced
<strong>Amarok</strong>. But here, not only the composition is fractured,
complicated and hard to follow, the <em>instrumentation</em> makes the piece
sound like everything Mike did <em>not</em> want to be: the drums are jazzy!
There are brass sections and sax solos! There are wacky electronic samples and
noises! Instead of Celtic and African, Mike goes completely Jazz and Blues!
Don't believe me? Heh, just you wait. While it's true that the piece has a
somewhat... "cheap" sound (some of it could be used in TV vignettes and stuff),
the composition is just remarkable, and ranks up there with 'Crises' and
'Platinum' in my book. The melodies are just as strong and beautiful as anything
Mike penned so far, the unpredictability and humour is all there, but this time,
Mike wasn't so... cheeky and nasty. There are more drawn-out pieces, gradual
evolutions and "rational" resolutions in the pieces, much more than on
<strong>Amarok</strong>. But the <em>way</em> it's played is just neurotic!
Slow, quiet parts are littered with eerie, creepy noises, fast parts are
frenzied and funky, with only a couple of strategic, badly needed calm,
"beautiful" portions put in. I love the vast, beautiful piano melody that opens
up the piece and pops up many times later, also the piano melody that rises up
to a grandiose climax somewhere in the middle and at the end, but I also love
the rocking, blusey portions! There are bits that keep popping up everywhere,
like that WILD, CRAZY mess of instruments screaming in a jazzy way, and the
hilarious, whiny saxophone melody that pops up whenever the tension needs to
be released. And there's a jaw-dropping moment near the end, when the
instruments go quiet and spacey, with a guitar melody on top, and Simon Philips
breaks in with <em>two</em> astounding drum fills for no reason. Man, Philips's
drumming in this piece is OUTSTANDING! Check it out if you can.</p>

<p>Seriously, this is not only a sadly underrated album, but it's one of Mike's
best, in my opinion. And, of course, it's the end of Mike's contract with
Virgin. He moved on to Warner, Richard Branson was already a tycoon, and
everybody's happy? Heh, you <em>wish</em>!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Oh, man! It's hard to get <em>this</em> fun!<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - I find Mike's angst a bit silly, to be fair... or maybe he was goofy on purpose?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - 'Music From The Balcony'? Excellent! Pop songs? Generic, but excellent!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Come on, man! Admit it! There are good melodies everywhere!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - It's quite surprisingly solid, really.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Mr. <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail</a>, I want your comments!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bells2">Tubular Bells II (1992)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Go to Hell.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Sentinel</li>
  <li>Dark Star <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Clear Light</li>
  <li>Blue Saloon</li>
  <li>Sunjammer</li>
  <li>Red Dawn <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Bell <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Weightless <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Great Plain <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">Sunset Door &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">Tattoo &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Altered State</li>
  <li>Maya Gold</li>
  <li>Moonshine <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
</ol>

<p>And thus, begins the second chapter of Mike Oldfield's Saga For A Better
World. See here, <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> was a project he had been
thinking about since the late 80's, but he didn't want to release the album on
Virgin and give them a mega-hit. So, as soon as he went into Warner, he began
working on the album. Initially, he announced the album would be parts 3 and 4
of the original album, keeping the spirit and instrumentation from the original
album. But, at some point, he changed his mind. When? How? Why? I have
absolutely no idea. All I know is that his plans changed completely. Maybe it
was the influence of Trevor Horn, who produced the album. But maybe it was all
Mike's idea, anyway.</p>

<p>What I know is that this change is the <em>worst</em> thing that happened to
Mike Oldfield to this point, in my opinion. Really, if the album could have been
a worthy continuation of the original album, then the change of plans couldn't
possibly be any worse. See, he decided to completely <em>rewrite</em> the album,
keeping the same structure and flow, but changing the melodies and arrangements.
Seriously! The flow is <em>exactly</em> the same - every part of <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> is replicated here, in exactly the same order. So, looking at the
track listing above and looking carefully at the names, you can more or less
guess which part each part represents.</p>

<p>Not that I consider <em>that</em> as a problem per se, but I just plainly
can't stand this album <em>at all</em>. Seriously, folks, there isn't <em>a
single</em> second of this album that truly pleases me, much less
<em>improve</em> on the original. Everything that could go wrong in this album
DOES go wrong. I don't know <em>how</em> Mike could pull off such an
extraordinary, cunning stunt, but he did. You know, I don't think the actual
melodies are <em>rotten</em>. But the arrangements! And that PRODUCTION! By
golly, this is terrible. Remember saying about "keeping the spirit and
instrumentation from the original album"? Forget about it! This album is taken
over completely by synths, synths and more synths, and <em>every</em> single
synth tone Mike uses here is cheesy, dated and terrible. It's almost like he
suddenly realised how AWESOME <strong>Earth Moving</strong> sounded, and tried
to replicate the sound here. And the result is this, a cheese fest with terrible
synthesized tones transforming average melodies in absolutely obnoxious
noises.</p>

<p>You know... it truly flabberghasts me. At times, I just can't
<em>believe</em> that Mike wasn't sabotaging the record as much as possible,
because at every moment, when the album <em>seems</em> to get really good and
pleasant, he ruins everything with synth brasses and "hip" sounds, or with
ridiculous female voices going "eeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeee" or "money money money
yay". And like I said, the melodies ain't <em>rotten</em> at the core, but if
they <em>were</em> really good, I think they could salvage the album somewhat.
But they don't! The music writing here just bogs the album down into an
excruciating, frustrating exercise in cheesiness. Want examples? Just listen to
'Dark Star', which is supposed to represent the psychotic fuzz guitar and the
growling basses. But here, we get a "hip" pumping rhythm and disgusting synths
playing "fast" solos along with Mike on the guitar. It's terrible! Other parts,
like the LENGTHY opening 'Sentinel' aren't really that bad, but -
<em>obviously</em> - the build-up is completely eliminated in favour of
ridiculous synthesizers and female voices. I can almost see Mike trying to
transform that song into something "friendly", which recognisable patterns,
"catchiness" and a happy, giddy climax that doesn't deliver any catharsis at
all. I <em>hate</em> pingy-pingy guitar tone he uses, you know? 'Clear Light'
somewhat relieves the ride with some almost hypnotic passages, but those
"stomping" passages and the "pissed-off" synthesizers completely ruin the ride.
And 'Sunjammer'? Just look at how <em>afraid</em> Mike is of making a seriously
loud, rocking piece. So, there's just a "chug chug chug" guitar and wheezy
synthesizers. Was it really necessary to make the album so goddamn
listener-friendly and commercial?</p>

<p>But so far, the album was a ride in the park. Starting with 'Red Dawn' (man,
Mike was <em>really</em> trying to make the album "atmospheric" with those
stupid song titles, wasn't he?), Mike just seems intent on torturing me for as
long as possible. There's a female solo vocal following the gentle guitar
pickings for no reason at all, and the only good thing about 'The Bell' is the
"strolling player" who announces the instruments, who is, in fact, actor Alan
Rickman. But what's it worth if the instruments he announces are "the Venitian
effect", "digital sound processor", "two slightly sampled electric guitars" and
the only tubular bells in the album that are NOT synthesized? The "grandiose"
melody is totally stupid, and instead of erupting into something vicious, it
just goes all "happy" as if the world was a big amusement park. I <em>hate</em>
that vibe. I can take happy music without problems, but not when it's SO
saccharine!</p>

<p>And then, there's part two. Oh, goodness. Look, I'll just talk about the GOOD
parts of the second part now, so that I'll get them out of the way. 'Altered
State' is <em>funny</em>, with Mike's half-speed ramblings alternating with
squeaky voices and stuff, and it's <em>somewhat</em> catchy and fun, among with
all the godawful vocals and synths. And 'Maya Gold' has a <em>WEE BIT</em> of
good guitar player before the "vocal chords" (probably synthesized, that is)
break in with their awfulness. The rest? Oh, golly. Look, <em>nothing</em> Mike
ever did in his life is as vile and terrible as this 4 track stretch.
'Weightless' is some pseudo-electronic piece with the guitar harmonics and a lot
of atmosphere that goes nowhere with its useless synthesizers and "eeeeeeee
eeeeee eeeeee" voices. It goes nowhere: no tension, no resolution, no build-up,
nothing. That means: all the best elements about Mike's music are absent. 'The
Great Plain' has no beautiful, shivery solo at all. It's just a sticky, generic
"pleasant" banjo melody bought on a discount store, which then goes "upbeat" as
if it meant anything. 'Sunset Door'? <em>GOODNESS</em>, I can't describe how
awful it is. Mandolin melody? Ok, you've got it, but add an awful female vocal
all over it and vomit-inducing bass breaks inbetween, and you've got your
"gorgeous" song. 'Tattoo'? Even worse. Remember how the "guitars sounding like
bagpipes" were angry and desperate, almost scary? Well, since this album is
COMMERCIAL, there's no space for anger and desperation here. So, Mike brought a
bunch of <em>actual</em> pipers to play a GODAWFUL "happy" melody. It's pieces
like THESE that make me hate bagpipes. But no, I can't let myself be influenced
by such vile music, no sir!</p>

<p>And for the finale, 'Moonshine' is completely unsurprising, unexciting
country music with no energy at all. It's <em>supposed</em> to be there, of
course, so it is. You know, it's quite a wonder why the HELL I'm giving such
a high rating for an album I badmouth so much. Even <em>I</em> am puzzled,
because I don't enjoy the album <em>at all</em>, and I think it just ruins the
"Tubular Bells" legacy with its existance. I think I'm giving it a generous
<em>4</em> just because Mike would do worse stuff in the future. But among
Mike's "bad" albums, this might be the one I hate the most. Saccharine, cheesy,
weak, unexciting, plastic and fake music, that's what it is. I'm
<em>somewhat</em> tempted to blame Trevor Horn for this disaster, but I won't. I
mean, Mike is a goddamn megalomaniac, and I don't think Horn could really
<em>influence</em> him to change his mind in such a way. I'm pretty sure this
was all Mike's idea, but I might be wrong. But whomever's fault it is, it
doesn't matter. This album is a black spot in my collection.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - Eh? Man, this album is <em>annoying</em>. Only a few spots are salvageable.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>2/15</strong></big>  - No, no, no. No siree.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - Well... I guess the "sequel" idea was fairly novel. And some of the music <em>is</em> fresh. SOME of it.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - Cheap, predictable melodies? Yep. At least they are <em>there</eM>...<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - Well, think about it: it's consistent. Consistently awful, that is.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/04.png" alt="4" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Rants? Death threats? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="earth">The Songs Of Distant Earth (1994)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>The Shining Ones</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>In The Beginning</li>
  <li>Let There Be Light</li>
  <li>Supernova</li>
  <li>Magellan</li>
  <li>First Landing</li>
  <li>Oceania</li>
  <li>Only Time Will Tell <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Prayer For The Earth</li>
  <li>Lament For Atlantis</li>
  <li>The Chamber</li>
  <li>Hibernaculum <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Tubular World</li>
  <li>The Shining Ones <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Crystal Clear <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Sunken Forest <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Ascension</li>
  <li>A New Beginning</li>
</ol>

<p>Away from the pressures of Virgin, and having already made his
<strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> dream come true, Mike Oldfield was free to do
whatever the hell he liked. And you know what? I know it's annoying for me to
start judging other artist's opinions and choices, but I think this...
<em>freedom</em> was actually Mike's big curse. His work lost aim. Without
pressure, he stopped pushing himself to the limit to come up with amazing,
groundbreaking music. He felt more relaxed, and decided to finally lay off the
real instruments, surround himself with hi-tech synthesizers and computers, and
release the big anti-<strong>Amarok</strong> of his carreer. See, this album is
named after a novel by sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke, and the album is supposed
to follow the storyline of the book. And to create the atmosphere of the book,
Mike drenched himself with electronic New Age sounds from the likes of Enigma.
Look, I don't KNOW what to call that music. New Age? Electronica? I don't know.
All I know is that it sounds <em>exactly</em> like Enigma: the rhythms, the
synthesizers, the chants and vocals, and the only things that can be considered
TRUE Mike Oldfield are the guitars and the melodies - that is, the
<em>least</em> I can expect from him.</p>

<p>You know, I don't condemn Mike Oldfield for changing his style so
drastically. No, sir, I don't condemn him AT ALL. It's perfectly fine. Problem
is, this album is just <em>not good</em>. Let me say it better: this album is
just <em>not necessary</em>. Mike is just following the footsteps of Enigma! Who
<em>needs</em> that? Well, maybe Mike Oldfield fans do need it - after all, if
Enigma are doing great music with a style of their own (though I don't know if
that IS the case), and Mike Oldfield is doing <em>identical</em> music but not
as good, of course fans will pick Mike Oldfield's album, right?</p>

<p>But I guess I'm not a Mike Oldfield fan at all. I just don't need this. If I
want this kind of music, I'll take it straight from the source. <strong>The
Songs Of Distant Earth</strong> is very, very weak because Mike, in my opinion,
just didn't have the chops to make this kind of music. It fails miserably when
trying to create an "atmosphere", the melodies are horrifyingly weak and mostly
neglected in favour of the "atmosphere", and it doesn't create <em>any</em> kind
of emotional response in me at all. And who needs space New Age that doesn't
have neither atmosphere, nor melodies, nor emotional response? I'll take Brian
Eno's <strong>Apollo</strong> soundtrack instead, thank you very much!</p>

<p>The only thing this album represents to me is mildly pleasant background
music. But it must be in the <em>very</em> background, to the point where I'm
not paying attention to it at all. In fact, this album is just excellent when I
can't <em>listen</em> to it at all. If it didn't exist, it would probably
deserve a full rating. But it does exist, so I have to lower the rating
considerably. Look, I'm serious here. I'm not just spewing venom over Mike and
his New Age doodle just because I'm mean. I <em>have</em> tried to get into this
album - and believe it or not, I DID once get into this album for some reason -
but after trying to let it cause an impact in me when I was in a particularly
frail and vulnerable state of mind, I was convinced: this album is worth NOTHING
to me.</p>

<p>The first half of the album, or so, is mostly hot air to me. 'In The
Beginning' kicks off in an atmospheric, quiet note, with the first portion of
the Book of Genesis (no, not <em>that</em> Genesis) being read by astronaut Bill
Anders aboard the Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, probably to give the space themes.
And after the dull, lifeless synthesizer tones are introduced, you're taken to
'Let There Be Light', where Mike's glorious guitar introduces a wonderful
melody... and it's only wonderful because it's taken from
<strong>Amarok</strong>. It's actually funny: a melody that was only played
about three times in the entirety of that album because it was so insignificant
next to the other themes is used as the backbone of an entire composition here.
Was Mike trying to go "minimal"? I dunno, I just know that the song's just
useless to me. I think I can <em>see</em> the "emotional resonance" trying to
be created, but something is stopping it - probably the combination of the lack
of skills in atmosphere creating and the lifelessness of the synthetic
landscape. Bleh. 'Supernova' is fairly pretty, though unfortunately it's not
much of a song - it's a slow build-up of guitars, synthesizers and a sample of
Mike's own voice horribly bent in every direction as if it was a corpse, that's
just there to introduce the "glorious" 'Magellan'. The melody that introduces
the song is actually beautiful, but after it goes away, and after the drums
(sampled directly from Led Zeppelin's 'When The Levee Breaks') fade away, you're
left to a bunch of piano atmosphere that goes nowhere at all.</p>

<p>And so, more or less, it goes. At the very, very best, these tracks are
fairly pleasant, and at the very, very worst, they're 'Only Time Will Tell'.
There isn't a melody in there - just a bunch of vocal samples being looped over
and over. Bleh, can you imagine the scene? Mike Oldfield exploring a sample CD
bought with a few bucks searching for sounds, until he bumps across a generic
"African" chant and goes "hmm, this is fine", and then he sticks it into his
song. Much easier than writing a melody, right? And it's a shame, because the
songs that <em>are</em> based on melodies are very good! Most of them, that is.
Try hearing 'Hibernaculum', for instance. The sound is a blatant Enigma rip-off
(just listen to the Gregorian chants!), but the melody is pretty good! 'The
Shining Ones' is just <em>cute</em>, with tablas making a rhythm, and shiny
synth sounds playing something that I can call a melody! And 'Sunken Forest' is
a short mood piece, but with another <em>melody</em>. It's a bit obvious trying
to sound like a "Sunken Forest", but it does succeed, somewhat.</p>

<p>And the "centrepiece" is 'Crystal Clear', which has only a trace of a melody,
moody synth chords, endless guitar noodlihg and samples from a self-hypnosis
tape. So, you have some guy's voice saying stuff like "crystal clear" over the
music, and making an extra dorky "countdown" halfway through - and the guitar
just goes on and on and on, of course. Say, do you want an upbeat piece to break
the monotony? Try 'Tubular World', which features a riff highly derivative of an
album that I don't need to mention here. Not that the song has much more than
that riff (and more vocal samples, of course), but hey, it's probably the only
fast tune here. 'Lament For Atlantis' actually begins like a nice thing, with
a pulsating bass line and a soft, piano melody on top. Beautiful!... until Mike
aims for the SMASHING EMOTIONAL CATHARSIS, and is so obvious about it, that the
impact of the song is just wiped away. Eurgh! And 'Ascension', which I suppose
is the grand climax of the album, is just a reprise of several themes from the
album, played over the same slow, "funky" rhythm track. It's fine for most of
the time, except when it reprises the dreaded 'Only Time Will Tell'.</p>

<p>One of the biggest reasons of pride for Mike Oldfield in this album is the
multimedia presentation that's included in the CD, along with the music. As far
as I know, it only runs in Macintosh computers, so what the hey. I haven't seen
it, mostly because I don't <em>care</em>. I mean, this music is supposed to be
very visual, isn't it? So why it just <em>isn't</em>? You know, I'm very
sensitive when it comes to music, and most albums I have give me a very solid
mental imagery and visual - like when I listen to <strong>Amarok</strong> and I
imagine red skies and the sunset, and The Cure's <strong>Faith</strong> gives me
hazy, foggy, grey visions of sadness, and how Jarre's <strong>Equinoxe</strong>
takes me underwater with the fishes and the bubbles, watching the sun hitting
the surface of the water. But <strong>The Songs Of Distant Earth</strong> just
gives me no imagery whatsoever! Is it my fault? How can it be? I TRIED to like
this music! But I just don't. After I realised how void and shallow this stuff
is, the album collapsed in my rankings, and now I just don't care about it. I
give it an above-average rating just because it's <em>pleasant</em>, and because
nothing in it really offends me. Really, it's quite consistent, and it's overall
better to listen to than <strong>Earth Moving</strong>. Still, that doesn't mean
I like it. I can't even fish out individual songs from it, since it's supposed
to be a "bigger whole" (though indexed as different tracks so that fans can jump
directly to the "climaxes" and forget about the rest). So screw the bigger
whole. And screw the 3D visual multimedia presentation thing, too. 3D visuals,
1D music.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Background music, that's all.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Huh? Where's the resonance?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - Enigma rip-off... with the occasional Oldfield twist.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Hmm, a few good melodies here... ... and there... ... ...<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - As if it mattered much.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/08.png" alt="8" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 18, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Hi Fernie</p>

<p>OK, here we go. You and I have completely opposite views on this album. Completely opposite, so much so that I would nominate it as my second favourite Oldfield album ever (behind <strong>Amarok</strong>). The reason that we are hearing the same music totally differently is a simple one (mostly): you do not hear any imagery or feeling in the music, and I do.</p>

<p>For me, the imagery in this album is pretty much everything. I love the way I can lie back and let the music transport me to Arthur C. Clarke's world. Of course it doesn't hurt that I really really love the main guitar melody that first appears in Let There be Light, but I don't love the rest of the melodies the same way I love the <strong>Amarok</strong> ones. For me, this album isn't about melody, it's just about taking me to that sci. fi. world. And then there's Crystal Clear. The track goes along nicely, with some of the only distorted guitar on the album, when after the countdown he pulls out one of my favourite of all guitar solos. I can't quite place what this solo makes me feel, but I'm perfectly serious when I say that I can confidently put this in my 'top five Mike Oldfield solos' list. It just blows me away every time.</p>

<p>I've said already that the imagery is everything for this album to me, which, I can imagine, is a bummer if you don't get that imagery. I can understand what you're talking about when you say it's boring, dull etc. The one critisism you have for this album that I take issue with is when you complain about the lack of melody. Reading your feelings about Far Above the Clouds, it's obvious you have a thing about Mike and melodies, but I'm wondering why you don't continue this with other artists. Why aren't you flaming Pink Floyd's Marooned when you admit it's all solo and no melody? Of course, I know why: it's because it resonates for you in a way that <strong>TSODE</strong> and Far Above the Clouds do not. But surely it's the lack of imagery, not lack of melody that's the problem for you here? <span class="edNote">[editor's note: Right, I can see where you're going here, so let me explain myself a little more. My case with 'Marooned' isn't that I love the solo, but I'm actually impressed at how David Gilmour was able to play a guitar solo that actually <em>speaks</em> something, something extremely rare. But the truth is, I expect different things from different artists. Pink Floyd were never <em>masters</em> of idiosyncratic and memorable melodies - like Mike oldfield - but they could produce atmospheres and sonic landscapes like Mike could never hope to do, and that's why I like them. Mike's music is always stronger when it's melodically rich, and <strong>The Songs Of Distant Earth</strong> isn't. I <em>would</em> like the album if it had something other than melodies (remember that I mentioned <strong>Apollo - Atmospheres &amp; Soundtracks</strong>), but to me, it hasn't. It's neither melodic (and you agree with that) neither atmospheric or anything. You may have a different feeling about it, but that's the subjectivity of music.]</span></p>

<p>But that's all off topic. All I can say is that this is easily in my top 10 albums of all time. You wonder how people can possably say this is better than <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>? Well, I do say that, because however much I enjoy <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> I enjoy this more. Is that so hard to believe? <span class="edNote">[editor's note: it is, when you have my opinions. :-) But that's only proof of my disdain towards this album, nothing more.]</span> Remember, you yourself liked it at one stage, and reading your comments on tubular.net you were really into it. So there must be something in it, even if you can no longer hear it.</p>

<p>Alex Holman</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Ideas? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="voyager">Voyager (1995)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Dark Island</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Song Of The Sun</li>
  <li>Celtic Rain <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Hero</li>
  <li><span class="good">Women Of Ireland ++</span></li>
  <li>The Voyager</li>
  <li>She Moves Through The Fair</li>
  <li><span class="good">Dark Island ++</span></li>
  <li>Wild Goose Flaps Its Wings</li>
  <li>Flowers Of The Forest</li>
  <li>Mont St. Michel</li>
</ol>

<p>Allegedly, this album was a suggestion made by the record company. See, it
went more or less like this: the Warner executives saw in Mike a huge potential
of cashing-in on the sudden "hipness" of Celtic music, particularly with the
likes of Riverdance. After all, Mike did <strong>Ommadawn</strong>, and he was
pretty "in" with the Celtic crowd. It sounded perfect, didn't it? Mike just
wouldn't incorporate Celtic elements into his unique, diverse brew - he would
MAKE Celtic music, capitalise on it. And for Mike, it sounded like a good deal,
too: <strong>The Songs Of Distant Earth</strong> was a big, ambitious project,
and working so much with computers and synthesizers made him detached from his
past. So, this would be the "return to the roots".</p>

<p>And maybe it is. Who knows? I have to say I know crap about Celtic music. All
I know is that there's a little melodic "bend" that's very characteristic of
Celtic music - well, at least that's what I learnt from this album, because Mike
does that little "bend" about 50 times in each of these ten tracks. Anyway,
whether that little bend is what determines whether a song is "Celtic" or not,
it doesn't matter much. Among the ten tracks here, only four were written by
Mike. The others are mainly adaptations of traditional tunes, so that either
shows how burnt out Mike was at this stage, or how <em>rootsy</em> he was
willing to be. But... eh, I might sound a little cynical here, but even if Mike
was trying to be rootsy here, I don't think he was really aiming towards
anything artistic. In other words, this is a CASH-IN. It sounds damn obvious,
doesn't it? This stuff was fashionable back then! But hey, I'm not preaching
anything here, and I'm not condemning Mike for that. Why should I?</p>

<p>Besides, whether it is a cash-in or not, it doesn't matter much in the end.
Why? Because this is a terribly weak album. Do I even need to waste so many
words to explain that? Just imagine the scene: after doing his "magnum-opus" in
1994, filled with 3D graphics and state-of-the-art technology, Mike releases
something easy and braindead just for the hell of it. That's JUST what it sounds
like here, what with the huge number of backing musicians and the glaring lack
of original material. See, there <em>are</em> four original tracks here, but how
much content do you find on them? I never got the appeal of 'The Voyager',
really. Or maybe I got its total lack of appeal way too early. Who knows? It
sounds like a flaccid, utterly generic stab at "Celtic" to me - no stand-out
melody, no unforgettable feature; just a predictable melody, bagpipes,
bodrh&aacute;n, pinging guitar, and everything else. It doesn't stick to the
brain at all. Is it because it's "atmospheric"? Well, if I want some sort of
atmosphere, I have no reasons <em>at all</em> to listen to this album instead of
some of Enya's best albums, for example! Probably Mike fans will pick this album
instantly whenever something "Celtic" is desired, but me? Just like I'd pick
Enigma over <strong>The Songs Of Distant Earth</strong> any time of the day, I
pick <strong>Shepherd Moons</strong> over this one too.</p>

<p>The other original songs? Well, 'Wild Goose Flaps Its Wings', aside from a
silly sounding title, has some mean guitar soloing. Actually, it IS mean guitar
soloing only. Is there a melody here? If there is, it's hardly noticeable, and
it sounds more like Mike's making up the song as he goes. Rabid fans may want to
point out extremely delicate intricacies and poignant moments in Mike's guitar
noodling, and find out some subjective interpretation to the whole thing (after
all, the TITLE is there for that! "Wild Goose Flaps Its Wings, see? See? Picture
a Wild Goose Flaps Its Wings when you hear it! Do it! You'll HAVE to get the
atmosphere eventually, even if you're just faking it!"), but I just pass it. I
can take some good Mike soloing, but without solid content to support it? No,
thanks. Maybe if the song was called "Cuddly Cat Wags Its Tail", I'd like it
more? I like cats, you know! Maybe I'm not <em>Celtic</em> enough to appreciate
geese, and the songs they inspire. Heh.</p>

<p>Two remaining. One of them is the <em>magnum-opus</em> of the album, the
12-minute long, London Symphonic Orchestra laden 'Mont St. Michel'. And, man,
it sure <em>does</em> sound like a couple of "Celtic-sounding" odds and ends
assembled together as a bigger opus. It's got everything: the gradual intro,
the dramatic first part, the INTENSE middle-section, and the bombastic,
uplifting finale, <em>every</em> bit of it done in 100% Hollywood style. Is it
good? I don't know. All I know is that I couldn't care less about it. Gee, why
doesn't this thing TOUCH me at all? Do I need to go to Ireland to appreciate it?
I always thought that <em>truly</em> atmospheric music makes the places come to
your mind, but this doesn't happen with <strong>Voyager</strong> at all. Maybe
if I close my eyes, try REALLY hard to picture beautiful fields of green and
flowers (and maybe Piggley Winks somewhere in the distance), I can
<em>begin</em> to faintly enjoy the music here. But is it worth the effort?
Hardly. Besides, the clear distinction between false atmospheric music and REAL
atmospheric music is very well shown in the album: I find 'Celtic Rain', the
final Oldfield composition, to be a very pleasant, beautiful song. Maybe because
of the lack of <em>seriousness</em> in the performance? 'The Voyager' was pretty
bombastic, 'Wild Goose Flaps Its Wings' was really straight-faced and serious,
and 'Mont St. Michel' was WILDLY bombastic. 'Celtic Rain' is just pleasant and
gorgeous, with an actual melody showing through very well. Perhaps the melody
is just generic too, but at least it <em>sounds</em> honest. I like it, at
least.</p>

<p>Now, on to the traditionals! And, man, are tracks like 'The Hero' and
'Flowers Of The Forest' important to understand Mike's style, at least in the
90's or so. They're originals, alright, but it seems clear to me that Mike was
more worried in making the songs as loud, bombastic and soul-crushing as
possible, instead of letting the song's beauty show through naturally. I can't
understand the need of stuffing these songs with all that make-up. It only makes
them artificial and downright <em>fake</em>, and that's not a nice thing to do
with a traditional tune, is it? Still, some songs here are great! Really, I mean
<em>great</em>! And I don't say that just not to show myself biased against the
album. 'Women Of Ireland' somehow works wonders, with some odd
Enya-meets-Vangelis synth sounds, and a strange, weepy, rainy atmosphere
expressed in that slow, plaintive rhythm. I mean, the song is <em>'Women Of
Ireland'</em>, and listening to the song, it sounds like the women are all dead,
or something. It's a joke, of course. But Mike really does find the right way
to deliver that melody with his shimmering guitar work. Really, he's
<em>playing</em> the melody with his omnipresent guitar, so it's a Mike Oldfield
track - unlike 'The Hero' or 'Flowers Of The Forest', where he's far in the
back, playing his acoustic guitar among all the noise from the other
instruments. 'Dark Island'? That's a <em>classic</em>! I guess the version here
is a <em>bit</em> overblown, but you can't ruin a melody like that! And Mike
plays some beautiful, delightful guitar (drenched in digital reverb, of course,
but that's the way things go...). I love the song, and in the end, that one and
'Women Of Ireland' are the only ones I can call genuine classics.</p>

<p>Strangely, I also think it's hard to ruin the melody of 'She Moves Through
The Fair', but somehow, Mike <em>almost</em> did it. I just can't stand the way
he plays that song, with an unbearable tension running through it but never
being resolved in any way, and with blatant Enya rip-off synths all the way
through it. Erk! Man! Bad. I think I like the opening 'Song Of The Sun' more
than a bit, though, being one of the few "upbeat" songs in here. Fun!</p>

<p>I just fail to understand what the hell Mike was trying to do with the album.
There seems to be no aim at all, other than offering some "Celtic" to the public
under his name. Other than 'Dark Island', 'Women Of Ireland' and 'Celtic Rain',
there's nothing here that I'd really want to listen to on a daily basis. And
it's sad to think that, overall, the original songs are the worst ones. And yes,
I'm including 'Mont St. Michel' in that. I even like 'The Lake' more than it.
Bottomline is, only search for this album in case you're a REAL fan, or if
you're desperate to get some Oldfield and this is the only you can get. If you
want a good Oldfield album, look somewhere else, and if you want a good Celtic
album, look somewhere else. If you want just pleasant near-mediocrity, I guess
you can pick this one, after all. At least, you most probably <em>won't</em> be
offended - and that's much more than what I can say about certain albums
ahead...</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - Very... <em>average</em> stuff. Almost mediocre, I say.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - There are pleasant bits, but there are VERY overblown bits too.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Hmm... how can I put it? There isn't anything original about playing and writing generic Celtic music, is it?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/15</strong></big> - I guess the non-originals have beautiful melodies, no matter how obscured they are at times.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - Say again?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/09.png" alt="9" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Flame wars? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me now</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bells3">Tubular Bells III (1997)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>Who cares.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>The Source Of Secrets</li>
  <li>The Watchful Eye</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Jewel In The Crown &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Outcast</li>
  <li>Serpent Dream</li>
  <li><span class="bad">The Inner Child &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Man In The Rain <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Top Of The Morning</li>
  <li>Moonwatch</li>
  <li>Secrets <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">Far Above The Clouds &times;&times;</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Apparently, having two <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> albums wasn't enough.
There had to be a third one. But this time, Mike didn't just go there and made
the album. He bought a mansion in the calm, peaceful island of Ibiza for
inspiration - only to find out later about the invasion of clubbers and ravers
into the island during Summer. Mike had no choice other than to get into the
parties, learn about dance music, get wasted, crash his car, and make some
<strong>Tubular Bell</strong> music. Sounds whacked out?</p>

<p>There's a strong temptation of saying this album is "dance music", but there
are only two (or three) tracks here that incorporate those rhythms. So only a
<em>part</em> of it draws influences from dance music (and I mean those
plump-plump-plump-plump loops that hardly go anywhere), but that DOES indicate
what kind of stuff Mike was attempting here. The main thing is, this is the
third "installation" of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. It's NOT another
rewrite, but it isn't a "continuation" either. Many people defend that this
album is a recombination of the original album, that is - it's the ideas
separated from each other and recombined in different ways. Sounds like a cool
thing to do, doesn't it? In theory, yes, but I just can't see <em>how the hell
this album is supposed to be related to <strong>Tubular Bells</strong></em> in a
musical level. To me, this is just a marketing trick. <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> sells, doesn't it? It certainly does, and that's what matters. I
suppose I could do some extra effort to see some deeper meaning in these tracks,
and draw a complex, refined relationship between then two (or three) albums. I
<em>would</em>, if the music weren't so goddamn <em>horrible</em>. And I mean
<em>horrible</em> indeed, not just "annoying" or "cheesy". I mean <em>bad</em>.
Personal opinion? Yes, it is, but it is STRONG personal opinion. I don't think
anyone can fully convince me that this album is <em>good</em>.</p>

<p>And after all, in Mike's carreer, this is the very first <em>bad album</em>
he has released. <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> kinda sucks, indeed, but I
see some <em>potential</em> in the album. Some of the music is quite good, but
the WAY the album is executed is what really kills it. This one? To me, the
music is rotten at the core: the conception, the underlying melodies, the
instrumentation, and just the overall idea of making ANOTHER "sequel" to
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, turning it into a brand, some generic name, and
not an unique, treasurable thing. Yes, there is "dance music" in here, and it
implies that there are hi-tech synthesizers and computers. And they are DAMN
EVERYWHERE. There's hardly any natural instruments other than the same guitar
tones Mike has been using since <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>, and some
piano, and some VERY annoying "Oriental" vocals done by one Amar. Not only the
guitar tones are utter Oldfield clich&eacute;, but the THINGS he plays are just
the same old stuff. There's <em>nothing</em> new! These tracks are just old
stuff recycled for the electronic, computerised generation.</p>

<p>'The Source Of Secrets' opens the album with the mandatory tinkling piano
riff and a "plump-plump" loop. That's pretty much the basis of the song: a dance
'Sentinel'. You've got the guitar melody popping up at times, and the obnoxious
vocals of Amar, just to give <em>some</em> variety to the brew - after all,
there's no build-up. And even though there is no build-up, there's a RAZING
CLIMAX at the end of the track. Actually, there's a RAZING CLIMAX at the end of
basically every track here, even if it means raising the master volume from
VERY LOUD to OH-MY-GOD-IT-HURTS. After 'The Source Of Secrets' vanishes into
thin air (wind, actually, according to the SFX), you've got the "wind melody" of
'The Watchful Eye', an "atmospheric" pseudo-ambient track that reeks of Jarreism
and Vangelis synth bleeps. And even though the wind melody is completely
uncatchy, you'll end up with it stuck to your brain, since the melody is
repeated about 80 times through the album - to give it a sense of cohesion?
Possibly, but there's a difference between "cohesion" and "headache". There are
MANY ways to give cohesion to an album other than repeating one melody ad
nauseum, you know.</p>

<p>And what comes next is... not good at all. 'Jewel In The Crown' is a hateful
electronic pastiche that sounds like a very bad outtake from <strong>The Songs
Of Distant Earth</strong>: moronic Enigma drum loop, insubstantial "melody",
more Amar vocals, and just the worst possible combinations of guitar sounds and
synthesizers. After this song, the "electronic" intro of the album ends, and
that's only mild relief - after all, if you haven't heard 'The Inner Child', you
just don't understand my hatred for this album. For this one, Mike brings Rosa
Cedr&oacute;n (from Luar Na Lubre) to go "ooooh oooooh ooooh" all over some
moronic, "plaintive" melody that's a cross between Vangelis's theme for
<em>Conquest Of The Paradise</em> and 'The Power Of Love' - of course,
everything very overblown and "emotional". But just wait until it explodes into
the GRAND CLIMAX of the final chorus. You know, this is just making loudness to
justify the "emotional power" of the music! But how can there be any power, when
the melody is so <em>rotten</em>? I'm serious when I say I don't know many songs
that are as badly written as 'The Inner Child' is.</p>

<p>And, of course, the album just wouldn't be released if Mike didn't end it
with the grand climax to put all the grand climaxes in the world to shame. And
as 'Secrets' recapitulates the piano riff from 'The Source Of Secrets', and does
a <em>direct quotation</em> of the bass riff at the end of part 1 of
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, it starts growing with "tense" sounds, that
don't really go anywhere, only to settle with heartbeat sounds, and an
"auto-biographical" speech read by a little girl, Francesca Robertson. I admit
that the speech is probably the best thing of the album, even if it was
suggested by a Warner executive, just as an excuse to have his niece's voice on
a music record. And what comes next is the glorious entrance of the (sampled)
loud, bombastic, fierce tubular bells playing <em>no melody at all</em>. And
that's all you have: dance beats, loud acoustic guitar strumming, African drums
sampled directly from <strong>Ommadawn</strong>, chanting <em>also</em> sampled
directly from <strong>Ommadawn</strong>, the guitar going bleep-bleep-bleep, and
the bells going blong blong blong in absolutely random fashion. The climax is
basically <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> summed with <strong>Ommadawn</strong>
summed with <strong>Amarok</strong>, but with just no <em>music</em> at all! It
just erupts into a Hellish climax, only to erupt <em>some more</em>, and then
<em>some more</em>, a <em>little bit</em> more, until my ears are begging me to
put an end to such torture. This is just insulting - bombast, bombast and
<em>more</em> bombast without content at all. 'Far Above The Clouds' is, by far,
Mike's defining moment as a pretentious, overblown musician who's full of
himself but absolutely devoid of anything new to say - or even anything
<em>old</em>, either. What a shame.</p>

<p>And talk about music sampled from other places, have you heard 'Man In The
Rain'? If you ever heard 'Moonlight Shadow', then you have. Basically, 'Man In
The Rain' samples <em>all</em> instruments from 'Moonlight Shadow', and just
replaces the chord structure with an old chord structure he used hundreds of
times before ("Guitars Sounding Like Bagpipes" from <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>), and replaces the gorgeous, dreamy melody with... nothing at
all, really. Oh! And the intro? Well, it's Rush's 'Time Stand Still'! The same
processed guitar tone, the same "heavenly" pickings, the same reverb... Heh.
Cara even tries to do a Maggie Reilly-like singing. But the solo is just
gruesomely loud and inadequate, with the guitar screaming its guts out all over
the gentle music. So, yeah, 'Man In The Rain' is 'Moonlight Shadow' with all the
good things removed. And as far as copies go, I'll keep the infinitely superior
'Crime Of Passion'.</p>

<p>More sampling ensues on 'Outcast', and this time, the "rocking", shrieking
guitars are played over the 'Shadow On The Wall' drum track. The song is just
Mike chuga-chugaing away on the electric guitar, playing something "Spanish"
once in a while, but not doing much with it. Come on, couldn't he even get a new
drum track? Is this self-referencing, or just plain <em>laziness</em> to get an
actual drummer, or go play some drums himself? This is the ultimate
anti-<strong>Amarok</strong>, that's for sure - double the ambition, remove all
the energy. And all you get is endless chuga-chuga, and a <em>totally</em>
unnecessary increase in volume at the end, just to make your ears bleed.
Yuck.</p>

<p>Now, I can speak about the relatively good things of the album. In 'Serpent
Dream', Mike doesn't waste any effords in making ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that his
Spanish guitar playing is immitating a serpent. Solid guitar playing? Yes,
perhaps, but Mike didn't really <em>need</em> to show-off his skills when he
<em>already</em> recorded 'Taurus 3' and those fast sections in
<strong>Amarok</strong>, did he? I don't get how this relates to <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>, either. 'Outcast', at least, seemed to recall the hard-rockin'
bits of that album (doing a huge disservice to Piltdown Man, of course). Anyway,
on to "side two". 'Top Of The Morning' is mildly pleasant, with a fast,
beautiful piano melody played over synthesizers and stuff. But, man, I'd
certainly like the song much more if that piano didn't sound so BORROWED from
some generic soundtrack music to an American hospital drama, or something like
it. 'Secrets' is fairly Enya-like, but actually pleasant, beautiful, with a
tasty melody and touching guitar playing... until it blows it completely with
another completely unnecessary, overblown "climax" just for the hell of it.
Damn it!</p>

<p>Gee, I <em>really</em> can't praise anything about the album, can I? There's
a complaint about EVERY track here! Yes, indeed. Even I find it hard to believe,
at times, but <em>it's true</em>. There's not a single likeable song in the
entire album. And the way they're supposed to along with each other and form an
overall, meaningful "whole" is absolutely detestable. Mike just speaks on and
on and on, louder and louder with every word, but just says nothing at all. How
am I supposed to treat this as the final installment of the "holy trilogy" of
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong>? I can't, and I just won't. To me,
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is ONE ALBUM - a classic, groundbreaking album,
and not the seed of a loathsome "series". And it hurts to think that the worst
Mike Oldfield albums are the Bell-related ones. That's either a harmful result
of Mike's (understandable (somewhat)) obssession with the album, or just an
insistence on trying to express a lot of emotions, but not being able to do it
in a subtle, clever and/or humane way. Here, Mike just configures his computers
to create as much loud noise as possible, and hopes that with his endless guitar
noodling, he'll say something meaninful. Not to me, he won't. For all I care, he
can release an album with ALL of his albums sampled and played on top of each
other, trying to make the ULTIMATE personal statement of his carreer, and I'll
be ready to give him a shimmering 1. Give it up, Mike. Go home and write some
melodies.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - Only <em>very small</em> bits satisfy me decently.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>1/15</strong></big>  - <em>All</em> of this is plastic, fake, industrialised, cheap bombast.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>3/15</strong></big>  - You kidding me? <em>Everything</em> here has been done before, and much better, mind you.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>3/15</strong></big>  - Even the <em>melodies</em> are rotten here. Jesus, what has happened?<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - And I'm only being generous here.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/03.png" alt="3" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:ACAND@doh.health.nsw.gov.au">Alex Canduci</a> (March 19, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p><strong>Tubular Bells III</strong></p>

<p>SUMMARY: No! Not again! Please don't play it again!!!</p>

<p>This is a terrible record. Period. There is no other way to describe just how crappy this effort is. This is so bad, I'm not going to even describe the tracks individually - they just blur into one great heap of crap. Derivative, inane, purposeless.</p>

<p>I picked this up shortly after picking up <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>. I had the original 1973 album (I mean, who doesn't?), and whilst not completely enamoured with <strong>TB II</strong>, I thought the idea of a sequel (or in my mind, a re-imagining) of <strong>TB</strong>, not a bad idea for an album.</p>

<p>Then came <strong>TB III</strong>. It was my understanding that, as <strong>TB II</strong> was a celebration of the original, and a reworking of it, <strong>TB III</strong> was a celebration of 25 years of Mike Oldfield recordings, and that this was to be a re-working of much of his 'greatest hits' (this was released in conjunction with his <strong>XXV</strong> hits album). Hence 'Man In The Rain' being a complete clone of 'Moonlight Shadow', right down to chord structure, sounds and guitar solo. (Actually apart from the guitar solo, this is the one track on the album I don't mind listening to).</p>

<p>I don't have enough of Mike's back catalogue (nor am I a big enough fan) to see if in fact the other tracks are reworkings of things like '<strong>Hergest Ridge</strong>' or '<strong>Incantations</strong>' - I'll leave that for others to decide. But just why this should be referred to as a <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> album is beyond me.</p>

<p>A noble intention? Maybe. But the end result was not even close to achieving that aim. Sure it was a re-working, but it lacked... it don't know, passion, maybe. The songs themselves were terrible, and who the hell suggested to Mike that Amar should even be allowed on any recordings? I mean, even Rick Wakeman's worst moments in his 100+ catalogue don't measure down to this (well... maybe not).</p>

<p>Do not but this album. Petition your local or state government to ban its sale or playback. Stick to the original.</p>

<p>Alex Canduci<br />
Land of Oz</p>
</div>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:matthysens@yahoo.co.uk">Die Matthysens</a> (April 25, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Best "Sirmustapha"</p>

<p>I'm from South Africa and, sorry if I offend you in any way (not my intention). But I seriously disagree with your comments on <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> and <strong>Tubular Bells III</strong>. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: No offense taken at all! I'm always welcome to ideas, agreeing or not with me, as long as they're written politely, like this e-mail.]</span></p>

<p>As a matter of fact, I think the opposite of your thinking. In my humble opinion, <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is not such a great piece of work. It is too mixed up. I sometimes tell people that they must be brave if they want to listen both parts consecutively. The most beautiful part is 4:39 of part I. I regard it as "quilt music" because it is a concatenation of pieces of music.</p>
 
<p><strong>Tubular Bells III</strong>, on the other hand, is the "teenage stage" of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. And it does have some similar characteristics when compared to <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>:<br />
* The recurring piano sequence<br />
* The "wildish" electric guitars region found in all 3 Tubular Bells albums.<br />
* Tubular Bells being played. I understand that they are not real ones, but they surely create an astonishing atmosphere (a ghostly atmosphere, in fact).<br />
* Listen closely to Far Above The Clouds. The tubular bells come in, "replaced" by an electric guitar after which the bells come back accompanied by a quick repetitive bass guitar sequence. Compare that bass sequence with the bass sequence in TB part I at the end. Not much difference, only in speed, pitch (TBI pI ending is in E-major, whereas FATC is in A-minor) and a note here and there.<br />
<span class="edNote">[editor's note: yes, what you're saying there is accurate, but the way the album was written, it makes me think that Mike only included those bits because he <em>had</em> to make people recognise the album as <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>. And yes, the riff in 'Far Above The Clouds' is the <em>same</em> riff of <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, only transposed to A.]</span></p>
 
<p>What do I like about <strong>TBIII</strong>:<br />
* The fact that it has some sections with a beat. It is almost as if <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is maturing and evolving.<br />
* The "windy sequence" that repeats itself has its advantage: It binds the album to a solid unit and serves as the theme of <strong>TBIII</strong>. Same with <strong>TBII</strong>. It has a central theme, something recognizable that reminds the listener what album they are listening to. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: yes, it works as a "binding" theme, but Mike had done it several times already in many of his albums, including <strong>Amarok</strong>, and this time, it sounds like a cheap gimmick, at least to me.]</span><br />
* The sound effects (the storm, the birds and church bells at the end) also makes for a pleasing change.<br />
* Amar's voice is not that bad! It gives a different feel to the whole <strong>TB</strong> concept.</p>
 
<p>What do I NOT like about <strong>TBIII</strong>:
* It is way too short (the album, I mean). At 46:41, it is very expensive (per minute). <span class="edNote">[editor's note: better be careful with <strong>Ommadawn</strong> then: it's 36 minutes long.]</span><br />
* The Source Of Secrets, Secrets and Far Above The Clouds are a little slow to dance with. I would like it if the tempo was a little faster than Tubular X, the unused remix of the X-Files theme by Mike (This is also a flippin' impressive work! I feel like flying, when listening to it!)</p>
 
<p>What I do and do NOT like about <strong>TB</strong>:<br />
* The first 04:39. The next few seconds are quite nice(until where the glockenspiel stops). I interpret it as Mike preparing us for a musical journey. The rest is confusing and mixed up.<br />
* The first half of part II is OK until the dramatic build up for The Song Of The Caveman.<br />
* The ending is completely out of place. It does not make sense at all. Compare it to the lovely piano at the beginning of part I...no no no. IMHO, it makes the album appear self-destructive (It destroys the atmosphere created by the ambient piece of music between "Caveman" and "The Sailor's Hornpipe". This point is also what I consider to be detrimental to <strong>TBII</strong> <span class="edNote">[editor's note: well, I should add that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> is, in part, a "self-destructive" album. I always regard it as an "encyclopaedia of adolescent human feelings," and if seen in that perspective, it makes a lot of sense - i.e., not making sense at all. The same happens with <strong>Ommadawn</strong> with the 'On Horseback' ending, <strong>Amarok</strong> with the Margaret Thatcher ending, and <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> (yuck) with the 'Moonshine' ending (yuck). I far prefer that "self-deflating" approach than the pompous <strong>TBIII</strong> approach, by the way.]</span></p>

<p>My advice when listening <strong>TB</strong>: Do not take everything you hear to heart. I get the feeling that every piece of music has some symbolic significance (which I don't know). My advice is to listen to it and ask yourself: "What does this part of the music mean to me?". Also consider the time when TB was "made" -> the 70's. The time of the "hippies": Freedom of everything: sexual intercourse, drugs as well as the horrific Vietnam War you name it. (I hope I'm quite right about this!). So Mike in turn, took advantage of this (fact) and created his first album, and inadvertently, affected music as we know it, for the good! <span class="edNote">[editor's note: as you might have noticed in my previous note, I <em>do</em> take <strong>TB</strong> to heart, and I <em>do</em> think every little part is there for a reason and means a lot to me. But it all depends on where you're coming from to appreciate this or not.]</span></p>

<p>Of course Mike does not want people to classify his music according to genre, such as New Age, Rock, Instrumental, or whatever. (Mike is going to hate me for this, probably) But I think <strong>TB</strong> in particular should be considered Experimental, because it is difficult to classify it according to one particular genre.</p>

<p>Back to the point.</p>

<p>I really don't think one should be so harsh when labelling Mike's work(s) as bad. Everyone listens to music in a different way. What one person considers to be crap, another person might considerto be utopically beautiful. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: indeed! I never intended to dictate anyone's tastes with my reviews, and that's why I'm accepting reader comments. Such a diversity of opinions is what makes things interesting, for better or for worse.]</span></p>
 
<p>A note to Mike Oldfield:<br />
I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way when reading this. Please take it, not as criticism, but as positive building blocks for future works (which I think you do). Of course, one writes music not necessarily to please others only, but to please oneself. Am I right?</p>
 
<p>I am a serious fan and working on collecting all your albums (<strong>TBIII</strong> is my first and <strong>TBII</strong> will probably be next!). I am currently revolutionizing some of our church's hymns and songs, thereby beautifying them by myself and for myself. I would really like to know EVERY techical aspect about <strong>TBIII</strong> and Tubular X (such as what are the names of the synth instruments used in them), as well as your feelings about them (what were you feeling when composing, playing and listening to them?, are there story(s) behind them? etc). A quote from ABBA: "Thank you for the music!". You have my support! Keep going strong!</p>

<p>You're the MAN! :-) <span class="edNote">[editor's note: guess I'll have to agree with you!]</span></p>
 
<p>Kind regards<br />
ivanovthetitan</p>
</div>

<p>Agree with me? Disagree with me? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Let me know</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="guitars">Guitars (1999)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Out Of Mind</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Muse</li>
  <li>Cochise <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Embers</li>
  <li><span class="good">Summit Day ++</span></li>
  <li>Out Of Sight <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>B. Blues</li>
  <li>Four Winds</li>
  <li>Enigmatism</li>
  <li><span class="good">Out Of Mind ++</span></li>
  <li>From The Ashes</li>
</ol>

<p>And if you think I was too mean when I implied Mike was lazy, this album came
to prove me right. It's not the worst Mike album ever, certainly, but it's one
of the most frustrating. The story goes on more or less like this: Mike wanted
to show the world that he was primary, first and foremost, a <em>guitarist</em>.
Enough with that multi-instrumentalist crap: he was a GUITAR man, and that's
that. So, he recorded this album with the clever, imaginative title
<strong>Guitars</strong> and that, as the liner notes say, was recorded entirely
with guitars. Sounds cool, eh? It's not unreasonable to imagine this album as an
onslaught of cool, wacky guitar sounds playing cool, wacky tunes. You do
remember 'Taurus 3', dontcha? You could expect stuff like that here. But then,
cruel reality dawns on you: this is <em>90's</em> Mike Oldfield, not 80's Mike
Oldfield. And things aren't at all like they could (or <em>should</em>) be.</p>

<p>Firstly, the liner notes said that the album was recorded entirely with
sounds <em>originated</em> from guitars. That means that you won't necessarily
hear <em>guitar sounds</em>, no sir. All the way through the album, he abuses
his MIDI guitar, that allows him to play the synthesizer through the guitar.
Tech freaks might find that really cool, but that ain't me. I mean, what's the
bloody point? A synthesizer is always a synehtsizer, be it played through a
keyboard, a guitar, a trombone, a kazoo or whatever. I'm not impressed. I just
can't understand what led Mike to think people would be interested in hear him
"playing" guitar, but not generating any guitar sounds with it. It
<em>could</em> generate some cool sounds, I admit, but good guitar players (like
Mike) can make guitars sound like whatever they want, <em>without</em> synths.
I believe he can do that, but he just didn't bother. He just plugged his MIDI
thing and plucked his guitar lazily, creating "atmosphere".</p>

<p>Wait... did I say "atmosphere"? But isn't Mike supposed to pick his guitar
and play wacky, fun, intricate little songs? I guess so, but this isn't the
case. Apparently, this album was also Mike's attempt at "diversity". Among the
slow, "atmospheric" songs (there are plenty of them), there is a Rolling Stones
tribute (!), dorky blues (!!), "Indian" (!!!)... sounds silly? Indeed. All I
know is that Mike was really shooting in all directions here, hoping something
would hit. <em>fortunately</em>, he does hit on occasions. Incidentally, two
"fast" songs here are some of my favourites. 'Cochise' is, according to Mike,
loosely based on Led Zeppelin's 'Whole Lotta Love'. Luckily, he just took the
groovy rhythm, that is, the only good thing in the song. Over that, he lays a
melody derived from 'Jewel In The Crown' (who would ever guess you could extract
a MELODY from that?), and chugs on and on fairly convincingly. The drum sounds
are all guitar produced, and there's a decent amount of guitar soloing (both
electric and acoustic), and synthesizers going "wooooooooo" on the background...
<em>all played on guitar</em>, of course! Overall, I like the sound of this
track a real lot. The descending riff in the chorus is the kind of stuff I
wanted to hear from Mike more often. And the "Rolling Stones" tribute is 'Out
Of Mind', and it's really fun! It's amazing how good music Mike can do when he's
got something good to play. There's a nice combination of electric and acoustic
guitar here, too, and just a nice riff to drive the song along. Great stuff to
hear.</p>

<p>But... you know something that <em>really</em> annoys me here? It's that
goddamn buzzy, thin, distorted "rocking" guitar Mike uses so much. It's such an
annoying tone, and Mike seems to think it "rocks"! Well, it doesn't. And that
tone is all over 'Out Of Sight', an absolutely moronic attempt at doing
something "jazzy", with the 'When The Levee Breaks' drum samples again
(triggered by guitar, of course!!). Ergh, I can't stand this song. And there's
'B. Blues', and... well, it's Blues. Good Blues? Not really. I guess I
appreciate the idea of doing some "homage" to B. B. King, but with <em>that</em>
retarded riff in the chorus? And I don't really care about Mike's soloing,
either. The final attempt at "diversity" is the 9-minute 'Four Winds'. Some kind
of epic? Depends on how you look at it. To me, it's four completely unrelated
musical ideas slammed against one another because they just wouldn't stand well
as separate compositions: some "rocking" guitar chords that don't go anywhere;
more Bluesy, relaxed soloing; "Indian" stuff with fake sitar; and a final
spaghetti western song with "Shadows" style guitar. To me, it doesn't really go
anywhere at all. The only somewhat impressive part is the third section, the
"Indian" bit, just because of the feedback-laden guitar solo. The "tabla" sounds
are somewhat funky, though, but again: tech wizardry that doesn't reach the
point of impressing me.</p>

<p>The other songs represent the "atmospheric" part of the album. And yes, there
are <em>five</em> of them. Half of the album is "atmospheric" thang with
synthesizers played through guitars. And the only song that I <em>really</em>
like here is 'Summit Day', only because of that dramatic, slightly heroic
atmosphere Mike achieves with that melody. It kind of sounds like Mike's own
'Fake Plastic Trees', with the melody played three times, each verse getting
more intense until the loud, soul-crushing finale. Isn't it amazing how
brilliant Mike's songs sound when they have a convincing build-up and a good
underpinning melody? This is a brilliant song, indeed - one of his best 90's
songs even, in my opinion. The others? Well, ehn. 'Muse' didn't need to exist,
in my opinion: a generic, lazily written piece of classical guitar with his
usual synthesizer background. Come on, it can't be too hard to write a melody
like that! 'Embers' and 'Enigmatism' are two pieces of synthesizer atmosphere
(the former later reprised in 'From The Ashes', in case the titles didn't tip
you off), but they are, at least, saved by decent acoustic melodies. They're
quite good, but... geez, man, what's the use in having so much atmosphere when
the intense parts aren't all that good?</p>

<p>I suppose I don't dislike the album all that much, really. But to be honest,
I don't <em>like</em> it all that much, really. And when there's that talk of
all the songs played entirely on guitars and so much fuss about it, it just
aggravates the lack of real quality. I can't even recommend this album to guitar
freaks, because the <em>guitar</em> itself isn't that much in evidence. This is
just a showcase of the technological things Mike can do with it as a
<em>device</em>, not as an extraordinarily versatile instrument. And if his
intent was to make us praise him as a <em>guitarist</em> with this album, well,
I'll still praise how songwriting and arrangement skills with
<strong>Amarok</strong> instead. The lack of real entertainment value in this
album forces me to give it a weak, average rating. But still, there are good
songs in here! They're not essential, though.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - A few very good songs, some good songs, and a very disappointing premise.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Where's the energy?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - A dumb execution of an idea that isn't even all that groundbreaking... some original musical ideas, though.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - There are <em>melodies</em> here! Good ones!<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - I wouldn't want to hear this album all the way through everyday.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/08.png" alt="8" />
</p>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me now</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bell">The Millennium Bell (1999)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Lake Constance</big><em>, but they all suck.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Peace On Earth</li>
  <li>Pacha Mama <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Santa Maria <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">Sunlight Shining Through Cloud &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Doges' Palace <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Lake Constance</li>
  <li>Mastermind <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Broad Sunlit Uplands <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Liberation</li>
  <li>Amber Light</li>
  <li><span class="bad">The Millennium Bell &times;&times;</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Mike Oldfield is an ambitious fella. At least, he was an ambitious fella. And
if this album doesn't make that obvious enough, nothing will. The problem isn't
with the ambition itself: it's got to do with the excess of ambition, and lack
of anything worthwhile to say. And this album is the <em>perfect</em>
illustration of that. Okay, so <strong>Tubular Bells III</strong> was already a
perfect illustration of that, but this one is <em>even more</em>, believe it or
not. Thing is, this has <em>nothing to do</em> with the <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong> "series". And this time, I <em>mean</em> it. This album is
actually a "celebration" of the turn of the millennium (though it was released
one year too early - the new millennium started in 2001, and <em>not</em> in
2000! Bugger!), and it was actually performed in a big, puffed-up concert in
December 1999, called "Art In Heaven" (yeah, right). You can imagine how pompous
this stuff is already, but I haven't even said what the album is all about.
Apparently, this is a "journey" through the entire millennium through music.</p>

<p>Yes, that's right. If <strong>Tubular Bells III</strong> was overblown, this
is overblown, universalistic and pompous, <em>and</em> with a sense of
historical importance. <em>And</em> bad. Man, is this stuff awful. You know, not
only Mike's melodywriting skills are as poor as they were in 1997, but he takes
this "millennium" stuff as an excuse to write derivative music borrowed from
religious music, neo-classical, techno and everything else. But that doesn't
matter, apparently: Mike's only intent was in making this as big, grandiose and
puffed up as possible - he brought in two choirs, an orchestra, hundreds of
singers and the drummer of Simply Red. And with a concert broadcast on TV and
everything else, you can only guess how seriously Mike was taking this stuff. I
guess that the most devoted fans will try to make a very detailed description on
how each track relates to one important moment in the millennium, and what it
represents in the scope of the album. But to <em>me</em>, this stuff is just
meaningless. With music so bad, how am I supposed to care about the concept
itself? The whole story is told through these annoyingly straight-faced attempts
at creating "atmospheres", not nothing here is any likeable. The concept and
grandeur of the project just makes things more detestable.</p>

<p>And if you're looking for bad music, I can give you all the names. 'Sunlight
Shining Through Clouds' is, by far, one of the worst things Mike ever did in his
carreer, and I don't consider this as his worst song ever because I just can't
call this a song. Mike takes a stupid electronic beat, a loop of clich&eacute;
African voices, and on top of that mess, he lays a vomit-inducingly ugly voice
of a woman reciting the lyrics of 'Amazing Grace' in a robotic, cold manner, and
the result is just... just simply one of the worst things I have ever heard in
my life. And of course, the generic American gospel choir joins in later on
singing some stupid lyrics over a ridiculous melody. Can someone just explain me
how this is supposed to be any good? If <em>I</em> had written 'Amazing Grace',
I would be plainly insulted. And the crap doesn't end there: you've got awful
electronic pastiches like 'The Doges' Palace', with a "plop-plop-plop" loop
underpinning a "classical-like" melody and random operatic voices bursting in at
times. You've got 'Pacha Mama', with a tinkly piano melody (see? See? The "Bell"
title and cover are justified! They are!) and voices singing something that's
supposed to be Incan over a practically inexistant melody. And there's what I
think is supposed to represent the arrival of European people in American lands,
'Santa Maria', that's just another horrible thing derived from Christian music.
It's just voices singing the song title over bloody awful orchestral things,
until a choir of voices shamelessly rips-off the melody of 'Adeste Fideles' to
sing their awful stuff. And what does it lead to? 'Sunlight Shining Through
Cloud'! This is a vision of Hell... with Christian music. Ironic? Or just plain
terrible? I say the latter.</p>

<p>The "least bad" parts are somewhat scarce here. 'Peace On Earth' is just a
pleasant Christmas carol (gee, this is a REALLY Christian album, isn't it?) and
all. Not insulting, but gee, this could have been written by <em>anyone</em>.
And if you think about it, it <em>might</em> have been written by anuone, and
lifted by Mike in order to suit his concept. 'Lake Constance'? This is is stab
at neo-classical, I guess, but in fact, it's just generic Hollywood soundtrack
sap. Mike pens some gruesomely generic melodies, and makes the orchestra play
the same dull phrase four or five times in a row, so that his acoustic guitar
can play the same melody 5 times louder than anything else. I can't even believe
how I'm indicating that song as the best in the album, but I suppose it's the
most <em>listenable</em>. 'Liberation' is somewhat okay, with more generic
voices singing shit over percussions directly sampled from
<strong>Amarok</strong> (travesty!), while his daughter Greta reads an extract
from <em>Anne Frank's Diary</em>, and 'Amber Light' is some more Christian sap
combined with African sap. Is this turning into self-parody or what? Mike thinks
he can just include some African stuff to show that it's music from the same guy
who made <strong>Ommadawn</strong>?</p>

<p>For some reason, there's a James Bond music pastiche in here called
'Mastermind'. The "Shadows" style guitar is dorky enough to guarantee some campy
entertainment, but what the hell is up with that cold voices popping up at
times? "Mastermind", the woman says. "Yeah, I GET it", I say, "I did read the
track title already." And it leads into 'Broad Sunlit Uplands', with a piano
melody that sounds lifted from the Theme from <em>Love Story</em>. I think it's
supposed to represent World War II. And why the hell it's linked with that silly
'Mastermind' thing? No idea! All I know is that, at the end, Mike invites one
DJ Pippi to provide some techno beats for the closing track. And when you hear
the voices from 'Pacha Mama' singing over the electronic beats, try NOT to
laugh! This stuff is plainly <em>ridiculous</em>. And just listen as someone
plays a terrible electronic "melody" over it, and keeps on including samples
from the other tracks on top of the rhythm, making it sound horribly inadequate.
And at one point, everthing goes quiet with the "BLOOOOOONG" of a bell... and it
all goes back as it was. I mean, <em>this</em> is the turn of the millennium?
This is <em>it</em>? Just a sampled "BLOOOONG" to justify the "Bell" title? I
guess that's what happens when you celebrate the turn of the millennium in the
wrong year! Just picture yourself watching that stuff as year 2000 starts. Man,
I don't really remember how was the turn of the year for me, but it CERTAINLY
was much better than that track suggests.</p>

<p>I doubt you can tell that Mike would release an album like this just
listening to his 70's output. What kind of decline is that? Man, how sad. I
guess this is what happens when you take yourself <em>this</em> seriously, after
all. And this is a musician that I used to praise for his <em>sense of
humour</em>! I guess I can <em>see</em> some humour in this, but it's the same
kind of humour of watching <em>Manos: The Hands Of Fate</em> on Mystery Science
Theater 3000. If there was a musical equivalent of MST, then this album would
be a <em>great</em> feature. Still, I just can't picture myself listening to
this album again. And I just can't give a positive rating to an album based on
campy entertainment. In the end, this <em>is</em> Mike's worst album ever,
though I have to say: if given the choice, I'd rather listen to <em>this</em>
album instead of <strong>Tubular Bells III</strong> - but this is based more on
personal taste rather than musical quality. A friendly advice: don't get this
album unless you find an used copy on the street - there must be plenty of
copies in garbage cans, out there. Just look for it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>2/15</strong></big>  - I give it a TWO for a <em>few</em> so-so spots in here.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>1/15</strong></big>  - And I give is a ONE just because the album doesn't DESERVE the glory of having a zero.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>2/15</strong></big>  - Derivative stuff? You betcha! Only the usual Mike twists are scattered through, and they're all clich&eacute;.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>2/15</strong></big>  - Melodies? There are hardly any.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>3/15</strong></big>  - If you try really hard, you might <em>see</em> the concept in these tracks. But that's YOU, not me.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/02.png" alt="2" />
</p>

<p>Hate-mail? Love-mail? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them in</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="lunas">Tr3s Lunas (2002)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Return To The Origin</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Misty</li>
  <li>No Man's Land</li>
  <li>Return To The Origin <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Landfall</li>
  <li>Viper</li>
  <li>Turtle Island <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>To Be Free</li>
  <li>Fire Fly <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Tr3s Lunas</li>
  <li>Daydream</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Thou Art In Heaven &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Sirius</li>
  <li>No Man's Land (reprise)</li>
</ol>

<p>I have to say, this album makes me give up some of my bitterness towards
Mike. <em>Some</em> of it, mind you. <strong>The Millennium Bell</strong> was
pompous, puffed-up and grandiose, and it sucked. Mike was just losing his spark,
I suppose. That's understandable. I can't demand anyone to remain great for the
rest of his life. Bob Dylan is a fucking great artist, and even <em>he</em> had
low points in his carreer. So did The Rolling Stones. I think that's normal to
anyone who's been putting out albums on a regular basis for decades. And Mike's
ugly fate was only made uglier by his megalomania, his egocentrism, his
ambition, his <em>pretentiousness</em>. So when he finally accepts his state,
and settles down to release some <em>simple</em> music, I have to show some
respect. He finally decided to make music he was <em>able</em> to do. And what
<em>is</em> that music? "Chill out". At least, so he says. According to him,
this album is based on the kind of relaxed, electronic music people listen to
in bars on Ibiza, particularly in a place called Caf&eacute; Del Mar. I suppose
"Chill out" is just electronic music made for people that are too hip to listen
to some <em>really</em> relaxing, pleasant music. So, they labeled this "Chill
out" music for clubbers and ravers. And don't think <em>I</em> am labelling Mike
here, because HE came out to the public and presented <strong>Tr3s
Lunas</strong> as his own Chill out record.</p>

<p>And you know how much I dislike <strong>The Songs Of Distant Earth</strong>
as a whole, with all the synthesizers and fake atmosphere. But in that case,
Mike was trying to make something "important": a sonic painting of Arthur C.
Clarke's book. <em>Here</em>, he's just making relaxed Chill out. And no matter
how much I dislike this industrialised stuff, I can't badmouth Mike too much.
This is the kind of stuff he was able to do, and instead of doing something
grand, puffed-up and grandiose to mask his lack of ideas, he's making the
simplest music he was able to do. That's good.</p>

<p>But wait! I'm giving you the incomplete picture. This album wasn't a
standalone release. By that time, Mike was making a project of a Virtual Reality
game he entitled <em>Music VR</em>. He already dabbled with virtual graphics in
1994, and here, he was designing a <em>game</em>, in actual virtual reality and
stuff. The game was also called <em>Tr3s Lunas</em>, and had background music
written and recorded by Mike himself. And this album was actually based on the
music from the game. It's not the <em>soundtrack</em> of the album, but it's
based in it. So, well, Mike <em>was</em> doing something grandiose, but not in
music! Goody. I haven't played the game, myself, and I don't think I ever will,
to be honest. I'm too wimpy to navigate through gorgeous, synthetic landscapes
and sceneries and doing noble stuff in Mike's personal playground. I'd rather
build rollercoasters and theme parks, and making railroad networks for
delivering coal, goods and food. That's my cup of tea.</p>

<p>And there's that "Chill out" music. I don't understand very well what that
label is supposed to be in terms of stylistics and sound, but like I said, I
imagine it's a kind of music made to a specific kind of audience - the clubbers,
who want to "chill out" after an ecstasy-fueled party in Ibiza. Man, I HATE
night clubs and everything related to it - I hate the places, I hate BEING in
those places, among those people, listening to that music, and I guess I should
hate this "Chill out" crap too. But I don't. Surprisingly, I don't hate this
album. It's actually quite okay with me. There are songs I <em>like</em> here.
There are tasty melodies. There are good atmospheres. But does this stuff make
some good, relaxing background music? Eh...</p>

<p>First, I don't think I really like this kind of synthetic atmosphere very
much. I mean, it's just <em>not my style</em>. I have lots of music here that I
consider relaxing, and that have a calming effect on me. <strong>Tr3s
Lunas</strong> is just too annoying in places to truly calm me down, it's not
<em>that</em> rich, melodically (I mean, even I can run through libraries of
sounds and synthesizer patches to put together a four note riff and build
"atmosphere" on top of it), and there is just a terribly fucking annoying synth
sax sound everywhere in the album. See, Mike got really excited at the way he
could play a synth saxophone through the guitar (MIDI stuff again), so he does
it EVERYWHERE in the album. And not only the sound is awful and annoying, but it
drags the music even more towards "lift muzak".</p>

<p>And it also doesn't help that many songs here don't really do anything to me.
'Sirius'? Void stuff, with some piano "riff", the drum loops, synth effects, and
scarce guitar soloing on top. Actually, that's pretty much the recipe for the
<em>entire</em> album, you know. 'Viper' has a very annoying synth riff,
reminding me of old computer games with "futuristic" sounds. The title track has
a decent melody, but something about the way it's executed just annoys me. Mike
plays <em>the same old guitar tones</em> over a relatively "fast" rhythm. I
think it's the guitar tones, you know? You can almost <em>guess</em> what guitar
tone Mike is going to use next. 'No Man's Land' has a nifty guitar melody, and
a looping synth riff over a slow rhythm, but it's a <em>long</em> song. 'Misty'
has basically the same rhythm, and "introduces" melodies from other songs and
the glory of a four note riff... Maybe this stuff doesn't offend me really, but
is it <em>pleasant</em>? Not much. Also, one track here is just hateful: 'Thou
Art In Heaven' has an ugly, ugly, <em>ugly</em>, "dramatic" piano line that
reminds me of music used in fashion shows and stuff. I <em>hate</em> that thing,
and the entire track reeks of that "dramatic" vibe. 'Landfall' presents one of
those piano lines and an atmosphere that sounds about ready to launch into a
generic "doof doof doof" techno track, but fortunately, it doesn't. After all,
this is Chill out, right? Yeah. Thanks, Mike. Thanks for a potentially awful
track <em>not</em> made awful. Good taste, that's what it is.</p>

<p>But are there good tracks? Yes! Yes, there are! 'Return To The Origin' has a
special little melody thing in it, and a quite pleasant atmosphere.
<em>That</em> one is a good tranquil soundtrack! Definitely the best one in the
album, to me, and I don't even mind the wanky sax guitar and the whispers of
Sally Oldfield. It's just nifty! 'Turtle Island' is more upbeat, and has a nifty
acoustic guitar melody, too. It sounds somewhat... <em>borrowed</em>. But I
still like it, anyway. And we have 'Fire Fly', which is mainly a really, really
cute synth loop going on through all the track. I admit it <em>does</em> go on
for a bit too long, but I love the way the track develops. It's beautiful.</p>

<p>It does freak me out how so many things here seem slightly "borrowed". And if
you think I'm exaggerating, just listen to 'Daydream' - it's pretty much a
rewrite of one of Erik Satie's "Gymnop&egrave;dies", with just a bit of guitar
on top (curiousity: this is one of the very, very few spots in Mike's catalogue
where you can hear backwards guitar). Kinda freaky, I'd say. And oh! How
couldn't I mention the "pop single" of the album, 'To Be Free'? It more or less
matches the vibe of the album, but with actual percussion (I think), whispered
lyrics by Jude Sim, and a fairly catchy chorus. It's kinda uplifting, though not
exactly great. It could have been worse, that's for sure.</p>

<p>It's kind of regrettable, but I can't really give this album a very positive
rating. Even with all the good spots, overall, it's too spotty and annoying, and
isn't something I'd like to listen to all the time. Definitely not my style. And
I can't even "fish out" too many tracks here. I think 'Return To The Origin',
'Fire Fly' and 'Turtle Island' are only real standouts inside the album. Imagine
listening to the former in a compilation, and suddenly bumping across that synth
saxophone? Kinda icky, I'd say. So, eh. I can't say I like the album.
Unfortunately. It seems to me Mike just have some very odd attraction towards
those ugly synth tones.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Not very enjoyable background music.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Meh. The synthetic landscapes never touch me.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Where exactly the generic Chill out ends and the original Oldfield begins, I'll never be able to tell.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - Hm... There are <em>some</em> good melodies here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - It never really goes anywhere.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/07.png" alt="7" />
</p>

<p>Ideas? Suggestions? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="lunas2">Tr3s Lunas II (2002)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>I don't know... maybe </em><big>Snow Cavern Flight</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>The Earth Spirit</li>
  <li>Spirit Dance</li>
  <li>Snow Cavern Flight</li>
  <li>Redwings</li>
  <li>Sprites</li>
  <li>Solar System</li>
  <li>Requiem Of The Sky</li>
  <li>Moonlight Stroll</li>
  <li>Lunar Jam</li>
  <li>Joy Ride</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Thou Art In Heaven II &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>The Origin</li>
  <li>The Journey</li>
  <li>Landing</li>
  <li>Underwater Castle</li>
  <li>Butterflies</li>
  <li>Rebirth Tunnel</li>
</ol>

<p>In case you read the previous review, you'll have known about <em>Music
VR</em>, that is, the virtual reality game Mike made and that was released along
with the album <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>. Well, the <em>album</em> itself was
slightly derived from the game music, but it was <em>not</em> the soundtrack.
The game presented some entirely different music, and a devoted fan made the
favour of taking all of those musical pieces and compiling them into an "album".
The compilation was given the witty, imaginative title "<strong>Tr3s Lunas
II</strong>", and was released in the Internet. In other words, this "album" is
a bootleg, plain and short. And since nobody complained about it, and Mike
didn't send his vicious lawyers after the poor dedicated fan, I guess it's not
illegal, after all.</p>

<p>Right, it isn't illegal. It isn't official. It isn't <em>good</em>, either.
There are 17 tracks here - some of them are pretty short, some of them are
rather long. They all follow that synthetic "Chill out" sound, and I guess
they're supposed to match the computerised 3D landscapes of the VR game. They
all feature the usual, clich&eacute; Mike Oldfield guitar tones, and very, very
few of them present interesting melodic ideas. And I mean very, very few. Heck,
I just can't listen to this album at all. Really, I just can't. I <em>do</em>
have the excuse of saying that Mike didn't <em>plan</em> this release, so I
can't blame him for such an unlistenable, uninteresting album. Am I going to
blame the fan? Heck, I don't think so. He was most probably doing a
<em>favour</em> to all the other fans who wanted to listen to the music, but
couldn't (or didn't want to) play the game. But I just can't understand why one
would want to listen to this stuff without the game. To <em>me</em>, at least,
this music does NOTHING AT ALL. <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>, at least, had an
overall atmosphere, and a life of this own. But how the hell will I ever know
what this music is supposed to represent or mean? It just doesn't speak anything
to me! It isn't evocative, it isn't atmospheric, it isn't even fun. It's just
dull and awfully lifeless. And if I <em>need</em> to have the game to know what
the music is trying to express, it only goes to show how weak the material here
is. Put on <strong>The Killing Fields</strong> and it will probably freak you
out. <strong>Tr3s Lunas II</strong> is just <em>incredibly</em> annoying.</p>

<p>Seriously, there isn't a single track here that I find "salvageable" for a
compilation. Not a single one. There are a few decent ideas here: for example,
'Snow Cavern Flight' has a pretty good melody. And 'Rebirth Tunel' has a cute
melody, which is inflated and bursts into another "grandiose" climax at the end.
But the rest? Man, I just can't listen to any of those songs all the way
through. 'The Earth Spirit' is littered with awful "woodwind" and guitar
melodies, over some basic percussion stuff. 'Redwings' is just guitar noodling
over a weird chord progression played on "windy" synths. And there are
"vignettes" like 'Requiem Of The Sky', where choirs and chants are played
backwards in an absolutely ugly way, and 'Underwater Castle', that's
successfully made obnoxious by constant "shrieking" synths (and one of them was
already used in 'In The Beginning', from <strong>The Songs Of Distant
Earth</strong>!). 'Moonlight Stroll' is a pleasant piano piece, slightly similar
to 'Daydream', until it's joined by an awful "mandolin" sound. 'Sprites',
'Landing', 'Butterflies', 'Spirit Dance'... I could go on and on, but these
songs are all so alike and so dull, there's no use in discussing them. There's
no use in <em>listening</em> to them, in fact.</p>

<p>Also, I'll never understand the sequencing of this album: the two only upbeat
songs ('Lunar Jam' and 'Joy Ride') are placed back-to-back; the two longest
tracks ('The Origin' and 'The Journey') are placed back-to-back. No such thing
as dynamics, then? Not much. The two upbeat songs aren't very good, really. The
latter is kinda weird, too, popping up with some "dance" stuff halfway through.
And the two "long" ones? 'The Origin' develops very little through its eight
minutes, but at least you'll know where 'Viper' comes from (eek!). And 'The
Journey' is just a "collage" of different bits - and one of them, in fact, is
a melody lifted straight from 'Orabidoo'! Wonder why?</p>

<p>You'll actually find bits of <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong> here, too. 'Thou Art
In Heaven II' is every bit as gruesome as its elderly brother. 'Solar System' is
pretty much 'No Man's Land', though it brings some quite good piano arrangements
at the end. And... err... well, that's it, really. I'm quite amazed at the fact
that I namedropped every song here, because I really didn't need to. This album
is just a lump of stuff that doesn't work much. Does it improve when it's in the
game? I guess I'll never know. I just imagine what kind of computer game brings
this stuff as soundtrack - certainly not my beloved Transport Tycoon, or
Rollercoaster Tycoon. Certainly not the "evil evil" <em>competitive</em> Quake
III Arena (which is abysmal), either. So? Well, I send this album to Hell. If
you want it, you can search for it on the Internet, since you'll (thankfully)
not find it in stores. Should I thank Mike for <em>not</em> release this album?
Maybe. Just in case, thanks a lot, Mike.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - Eh?<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - Pff. Yeah, right. Make me laugh.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Err... I dunno why this should be more original or less original than <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>3/15</strong></big>  - Hah! Look for a bit of decency among these horrible melodies.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Well, these 17 tracks are pretty samey, so you could splice them into a big 60 minute epic and get away with it.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/05.png" alt="5" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (January 23, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>I'll start this comment by saying that I hardly listen to this one either. I really, really love Solar System, to the point of it being one of my favourite instrumentals (I'm serious here), but I agree with you that the rest isn't all that good. However, and here's the point of this comment, I don't think you should be treating it as a proper Mike Oldfield album, because it isn't. As you say, it was put together by a fan, so why do you take it out on Mike? You say "I can't imagine why people may want to listen to this stuff without the game." Mike never intended for you to listen to it without the game! That's why he didn't release it. You can't say it doesn't work as an album because it was never intended to be an album. From your review I get the impression you haven't played the game either, so you can't review it as a game soundtrack either as you don't know how the music suits the game. I think it's unfair to count it as a true Mike Oldfield album, and to criticize Mike for writing it.</p>

<p><span class="edNote">[editor's note: oh, gee, I think my review was really confusing. I hadn't noticed those two ideas could be so mixed up, but in retrospect, they are. So, let me make this clear: I <em>do not</em> take out on Mike the fact that <strong>Tres Lunas II</strong> doesn't work as an album. And I don't even take it out on the fan who made this album, 'cause I don't think he was trying to make an <em>album</em>, either. So, obviously, Mike isn't the one to blame if it doesn't work as an album, and I DIDN'T mean to blame him for that. What I <em>do</em> is question the merits of the actual compositions, which <em>obviously</em> were done by Mike in person, and that's all. But Alex is right, and that <em>isn't</em> to be blamed on Mike, so I apologise if I sounded like that. The truth is that the album <em>doesn't</em> work, in my opinion, (which isn't Mike's fault) and I don't like the songs individually, either. It's true that Mike never intended the songs to be listened without the game, but there is LOTS of game music out there that works wonders without their respective games. So, I think he deserves a bit of bashing for that! :)]</span></p>

<p>p.s. About Thou Art in Heaven II: even the arranger of the album hates this track. Just think: would Mike really release this as an album? (don't answer that, I know what you'll say... )</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them in</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bells2003">Tubular Bells 2003 (2003)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Peace</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Introduction</li>
  <li>Fast Guitars <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Basses <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Latin <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>A Minor Tune</li>
  <li>Blues</li>
  <li>Trash</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Jazz &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Ghost Bells</li>
  <li>Russian</li>
  <li>Finale</li>
  <li>Harmonics</li>
  <li>Peace</li>
  <li>Bagpipe Guitars</li>
  <li>Caveman</li>
  <li>Ambient Guitars</li>
  <li>The Sailor's Hornpipe</li>
</ol>

<p>Now would you look at that: if you count <strong>The Orchestral Tubular
Bells</strong> and <strong>The Millennium Bell</strong>, this is the
<em>sixth</em> "Bell" release in Mike's carreer, and the fourth in 11 years.
However, this isn't just another "sequel", nor a completely unrelated album that
just uses the "Bell" name and logo due to its familiarity. In fact, since 1992,
this is the "Bell" album that most deserves its title. Just look at the track
listing above: do the titles look... somewhat <em>familiar</em> to you? Well,
that's only because this album is a <em>complete rerecording</em> of the
original album. That is, it's no "sequel" stuff - it's the original '73
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong> done all over again, with most of the music kept
exactly the same, but with the arrangements slightly redone, and all parts
recorded from scratch.</p>

<p>This album came out as a "celebration" of the thirty years of the release of
the original album, but in fact, the plans for this rerecording date back to
the late 80's or so. It was just never done before because of a clause in Mike's
contract with Virgin, which prevented the album's rerecording for 25 years after
its release. That's why <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong> came out that way, as
a "remake", instead of a total rerecording. And in 2003, Mike pulled himself
together to revisit his debut album and eliminate all the "imperfections" in the
music. Just reading interviews, it was <em>clear</em> how much the success of
<strong>Tubular Bells</strong> haunted and puzzled him, and how frustrating it
was. If you heard the album already, you should have noticed the recording was
quite rough at times, there were a few bum notes, playing out of sync, and other
things Mike might have noticed. Thing is, I don't see a logical reasong for him
to go out and eliminate all of those imperfections. If the album was such a
smashing success, it only goes to show how utterly fantastic the <em>music</em>
itself was. Besides that, the roughness of the recording gave the album a very
disturbing "humanity". One goal of "new age" music is to make soothing, smooth
music without any of those roughnesses, and <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>, in
spite of being labelled as "proto new age", goes <em>completely</em> against
that. The album is unsettling and haunting, and those imperfections give the
album a lot more hooks to sink deep into your skin as it goes. And I find that
extremely cool.</p>

<p>Mike, though, doesn't. And armed with his guitars, state-of-the-art
synthesizers and computers and his own personal studio, decided to make the
album as <em>meticulously perfect</em> as before. And you know what? That's not
a bad idea, artistically. You put the album under a whole new light, give the
music a different dimension, and you can look at it from a different point of
view. And after all, people that didn't like the original album's roughness
could finally enjoy a clear, near-perfect recording. There are a few problems
about that - two, to be exact. First reason? Well, after so many "Tubular Bell"
albums, another one is just plain overkill. With this release, Mike was on the
verge of self-parody (and depending on how cynical you are, you can say he had
<em>already</em> fallen into self-parody), testing the very patience of his
audience (including mine). I <em>know</em> Mike's personal reasons to remake the
album, but what about everyone else? People have got way too many problems
already to worry about Mike Oldfield's obssessions and compulsions, right? So,
whom else should care about it, other than his fans?</p>

<p>And second... well, see, with <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>, Mike pretty much
proved he was willing to give up any "natural" ways of making music in favour of
the synthesizers and computers. Nothing wrong with that, after all, Kraftwerk
did that decades before, and with very cool results. But Mike was actually
giving more value to the technical and technological values than to the
<em>musical</em> ones. And sadly, <strong>Tubular Bells 2003</strong> confirms
this theory. It gives me the impression - no, no, let me rephrase that: it makes
me <em>positively sure</em> that Mike was more worried with making a flawless,
technically stunning, state-of-the-art production than with making atmospheric,
touching and meaningful music. Hey, I <em>know</em> that Mike had to worry about
the technical details, after all, that's the <em>point</em> of the rerecording.
But that doesn't mean the album needs to be SUFFOCATED with synthesizers,
unsubtle and in-your-face production and mechanised, soulless playing. But it's
not just that: Mike apparently takes the most interesting and stunning aspects
of the album and completely <em>eliminates</em> them, in favour of something
more "hip". Want <em>one</em> example? Look no further than the three first
tracks here. There's no build-up at all in the 'Introduction' - the piano
already starts screaming in your face, the organ stabs are smoothed out and
replaced by wussy echoey synth chords, and the bass sound is... ergh, the bass
sound is <em>terrible</em>. It sounds like some cheesy 80's keyboard synth bass
patch with high portamento, that is, bending the notes up and down madly instead
of hitting them with almost martial precision. This isn't just improving the
production: this is changing the purpose of the music completely! But I guess
I can understand the reason why: since the original music was so closely linked
with <em>The Exorcist</em>, Mike was trying to undo the "scary" aspect of the
music. But that doesn't convince <em>me</em> - three minutes of this stuff is
enough to make me hit "STOP" and put on the original album instead.</p>

<p>But wait... did I say "three tracks"? Well, yes, I did! The next two are
named, respectively, 'Fast Guitars' and 'Basses', and you should already know
which part of the music they refer to. But for some reason, the uniqueness of
the music vanishes into thin air, and Mike transforms those two tracks into
generic 80's hair metal. I'm <em>serious</em> here. Just imagine the original
"Basses" melody played with generic power chords on the background and with a
stomping bass kick, and you have the 2003 version. In other words, picture the
music as an introduction to a not very good Iron Maiden song, and you've got
it.</p>

<p>And that's it. In about eight minutes, Mike turns the music from
"otherworldly and unique" into "generic and mundane". And it doesn't stop there.
Basically anywhere in the album, you can hear the unnecessary synthesizers
making their ugly presence felt, the MIDI-ish sounds replacing the natural
instrumentation, and the obssession in making everything as perfect as possible,
even if it means making the music as unsubtle and obvious as possible. And when
Mike isn't just "blanding down" the music, he's just making it unbearable:
'Latin' is a joke. A <em>joke</em>, I repeat. Firstly, if Mike thinks that
"Latin" music is like that, he seriously needs to visit real life more often.
And secondly, it's just plain <em>lift music</em> to my ears. If you remember
how the original music goes, just know that 'Latin' has got <em>nothing</em> to
do with it. And 'Jazz' is much, much, much worse. I don't understand why those
"Organ beatbox" percussions should be there, really. It's definitely the best
example of how awful this rerecording is.</p>

<p>Oh, and if you love the buzzy, annoying mosquito-guitars presented in
<strong>Guitars</strong>, you're gonna <em>love</em> 'Trash'. Since I detest
that guitar tone, you might imagine how much I like that track. And 'Finale' is,
well, I suppose you know what part it is. Surprisingly, there isn't
<em>much</em> stuff ruining the music here, at least in the first minutes. The
role of the "Master Of Ceremonies" is taken over by John Cleese, of Monty Python
fame, since Viv Stanshall sadly died years before this album came to be. John is
argueably the best thing in the album, and he doesn't stop himself from doing
over-the-top, comic introductions to the instruments. What I <em>just can't
stand</em>, though, are the drums that kick in when the climax rolls by. I
mean... the original part 1 had <em>no drums</em>, for Chrissake! And even
though the drums here are electronic, it just turns the amazing music into a
bland power ballad. Thanks a lot, Mike.</p>

<p>Part 2 is more tolerable, since the music is more mantraic and repetitive,
and Mike didn't have so many opportunities to ruin the music even further. Of
course, you'll have to say goodbye to all the subtle, delicate nuances in
'Harmonics' and to the tear-inducing Farfisa organ in 'Peace'. For some reason,
the solo is handled by acoustic guitar and a faint organ that sounds like
<em>anything</em> but an organ. 'Bagpipe Guitars' has the second "verse" played
by an acoustic guitar, making it less "static" and mantraic. 'Caveman' features
a "cavewoman", which some fans speculated was Mike's sister Sally, but
apparently is just Mike's voice treated in a different way. 'Ambient Guitars'
is... well, it's the famous guitar solo played in an absolutely uninteresting,
bland fashion. I heard that Mike wasn't able to play the solo all the way
through (huh?! And weren't his skills supposed to <em>improve</em> with time?),
so the solo is a digital mishmash of different takes. It doesn't <em>sound</em>
like it, but it feels utterly dead. Mike tried hard to make each and every note
sound as clear and loud as possible, and that's apparently his only worry. And
to round things off, 'The Sailor's Hornpipe' didn't change that much, except for
the inclusion of the mandatory synthesizers, but you should have seen that one
coming already.</p>

<p>I didn't want to make such a "track by track" analysis, but I think it's the
only way to show how this album is treated here. After all, this <em>is</em> a
rerecording, and the only way to review it is to compare it to the original. I
mean, am I supposed to take this as a "new" album? Well, I just don't. I
<em>refuse</em> to do so: Mike's intention was to "improve" the original album
to the point of replacing it. And in fact, shortly after this album was
released, he put together a <strong>The Complete Tubular Bells</strong> boxset,
with <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>, <strong>III</strong> and
<strong>2003</strong>. That is, the original was nowhere to be seen. And
honestly, who could think that <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> can be
<strong>Complete</strong> without the album that spawned the whole thing? I was
insutled at first, but then it dawned on me: <em>of course</em>, the '73 album
was published on Virgin! And since they still had the rights on it, it would be
way more logical to release the package with the three Warner albums. So there.
Things like that make me think that the whole thing was nothing but a commercial
manoeuvre. And if Mike's intention was to replace the original album with a
perfect version, I'm sorry, but the only way I can review this album is as an
attempt at replacing the original album. And in that respect, the album is
<em>terrible</em>. Originally, I would have given the album bonus points because
of the music itself, since, well, it <em>is</em> <strong>Tubular Bells</strong>.
But ultimately, I think that makes no sense. If you want <strong>Tubular
Bells</strong>, go get the bloody <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> then. This
album, to me, is just a waste of space. And I heard it quite a couple of times
for reviewing purposes, and I'm afraid I'll <em>never</em> put it on again -
that is, unless I want to remind myself how much I dislike it. Other than that,
the '73 debut will revisit my playlist many, many more times, and
<strong>2003</strong> will accumulate dust for being what it is: a product of
its times.</p>

<p>And in case you're wondering: the album was split in <em>seventeen</em>
tracks because of a request from the fans. And nowadays, Mike says that long
pieces are "too 70's". Hear that, Godspeed You! Black Emperor? You're way "too
70's" for the hip, up-to-date Mike Oldfield. Such a cruel fate, innit?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>3/15</strong></big>  - No, no, no. This is just plainly excruciating.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>2/15</strong></big>  - I don't even need to say anything here.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - The music itself <em>is</em> still original and fresh, even today. But the way it's treated?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Want it or not, the melodies are all there.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - This is just a collection of small pieces, not a complete opus.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/04.png" alt="4" />
</p>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me now</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="shade">Light + Shade (2005)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Angelique</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Angelique <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Blackbird</li>
  <li>The Gate</li>
  <li>First Steps</li>
  <li>Closer <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Our Father</li>
  <li>Rocky</li>
  <li>Sunset</li>
  <li>Quicksilver</li>
  <li>Resolution <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Slipstream</li>
  <li>Surfing</li>
  <li>Tears Of An Angel</li>
  <li><span class="bad">Romance &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Ringscape <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Nightshade</li>
</ol>

<p>Two years after the release of the ill-fated <strong>Tubular Bells 2003</strong> and his Chill-out "masterpiece" <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>, Mike Oldfield returns to his roots. To his Ibiza roots, that is: what he have here is - gasp - a <em>DOUBLE ALBUM</em>. Yes, you read that right: his first one after <strong>Incantations</strong>. Each CD has eight tracks, and is just a little more than forty-minutes long. Thing is, following the steps of David Bowie, NEU! and Brian Eno, he decided to "split" his album in two: you have a "Chill-out" CD, with the calmer, slower songs; and you have the energetic CD, with the dancier, darker tracks. And as you might have guessed already, the first CD is called "Light" and the second CD is called "Shade". WOW! Yeah, I know, it's brilliant.</p>

<p>And, yes, this is pretty much a continuation of the trend started with <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>. Even some of the music here is derived from his Music VR games. And the style? Electronic as always, if not even more. See, Mike just kept expanding the electronification of his music. Not only this stuff is riddled with synthesizers and computers, and entirely recorded with FruityLoops studio, it makes full use of software capable of synthesizing singing. Yes, you must have already heard synthesized speech in music, but synthesized <em>singing</em>? Yes, that's right! And as you can imagine, <em>every</em> bit of vocal here is done by computer software. Mike says he mixed in a bit of his own voice in some of the tracks, but I absolutely can't hear it. The final result is that Mike tries hard to impress the crowds with his l33t synth singing skillz. Not that all these tracks have singing: only three or four of them are heavily dependant on singing. And that includes a very shudder-inducingly "realistic" female voice like on 'The Gare', and a deranged machine overdosing on those "stepping" notes a la Cher on 'Surfing'. And, of course, that's not to mention the songs that mandatorily feature synth voices reciting the song title several times for no reason at all.</p>

<p>But leaving the more technical aspects aside, this album reveals a sad truth: Mike's music is becoming more and more automatic. And I'm not talking about synthesizers on autopilot or anything. I'm talking about the musicmaking, too: several melodies here are just sucked from the two games, <em>Tr3s Lunas</em> and <em>Maestro</em> (not to mention that 'First Steps' is actually a huge reprise of the title track of <strong>Tr3s Lunas</strong>!), when they aren't sucked from someone else: 'Slipstream' is mainly based on a demo song that comes with FruityLoops studio, 'Closer' is actually "Nearer My God To Thee" (those who were unfortunate enough to watch <em>Titanic</em> will remember this song as being the last song the string quartet played as the ship sank), and 'Romance' is a rendition of another tune, featured on the movie <em>Jeux Interdits</em>. That leaves us with not a lot of new material, especially considering the length of the album. Yet, surprisingly, the album's not bad. Not bad <em>at all</em>. Well... okay, to be honest, <em>half</em> of it is not bad at all. <strong>Light</strong> is quite a solid offering, in my opinion. And <strong>Shade</strong>... well, <strong>Shade</strong> is just sad.</p>

<p>That's not to say that Mike mastered his Chill-out schtick. Many tracks just make use of those tired, ready-made breakbeats and synth presets, and the melodies are <em>just</em> okay. But I can only count two songs that I just don't like all that much: 'Our Father' is, on surface, a very generic and very pale electro-ballad, <em>exactly</em> the kind of stuff I'm used to hear in the background of radio adverts with someone speaking on top. And I mean <em>exactly</em>. And for some reason, Mike gave the song a religious overtone, with the synthesized voices chanting "Our Father" in reference of late Pope John Paul II. And 'The Gate' is just a slow, meandering display of the synthetic singer going "ooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ooeey-aaaaa-ooooo-ooooo" up and down, and up and down again. Mike breaks in with his classical guitar in the middle, but there's hardly any melody in it. Those voices... Well, depending on my mood, the singing can have some sort of perverse beauty in them. But on my normal mood, they're just creepy and disturbing. Just <em>why</em> couldn't he bring in a real singer, like every sensible musician? Did he think this is being experimental? Oh, please! This is just being dorky. Why not leave these Vocaloids to someone who can do something interesting and creative with them?</p>

<p>Well, okay... the other songs are all good. And I mean <em>good</em> as in <em>enjoyable</em>, not just passable. 'Angelique' is, really, truly, a great tune. Yeah, you've got the breakbeats, you've got the sinthetic voices chanting the song title (but making it sound like something completely different), but you've also got this really nice and catchy piano riff. This is definitely a song that could be made into a real masterpiece by someone more skillful, and is so good that not even Mike himself can ruin it. My other favourite is 'Closer', the rendition of "Nearer My God To Thee" that is disturbingly credited to Mike. Of course, I only really like the song because of the melody, which isn't Mike's merit - and it's kinda sad to think that the best melody in the album wasn't written by him. But what makes the song go up in my scale is that Mike just decides to <em>play</em> the melody in his guitar, with a soft Celtic-blues backing, and he <em>doesn't</em> turn it into a "cathartic" piece of crap with overblown, screaming guitars and synth swoops. 'Closer' is the pure, unadultered tune and nothing more. Amazing, innit?</p>

<p>The piano pieces aren't really highlights, but are good enough. 'Blackbird' has <em>nothing</em> to do with the Beatles' homonymous song, as it is named after one of Mike's motorbikes - and 'Rocky' isn't rocky at all, as it is named after Mike's horse... DAMMIT, if this isn't capitalism, I don't know what is! Anyway, they aren't really all that good, but are pleasant enough. If it's good songs that you want, there's 'Sunset'. It's a pleasant, beautiful tune played beautifully, with Mike back on his classical guitar. Really nice stuff! And 'First Steps' is a ten-minute long expansion of some of the <em>Tr3s Lunas</em> themes, and surprisingly, it doesn't suck. Well, it <em>does</em> in a few parts, but for most of the time, it's very tasteful. And what's more amazing is that the melody of 'Tr3s Lunas' actually sounds beautiful here! Who would ever guess?</p>

<p>As for <strong>Shade</strong>... Well, to begin with, there are several of those "dance" pastiches that I don't care at all about. 'Quicksilver' is littered with random synthesizer effects and arpeggios and random guitar "doodle-doodle-deedly-doodly-deedly-doodlydoodledoodly-doos", and brings back a Tubular Bells-like melody just to drive me insane. The rhythm is quite lame and dated, too. 'Slipstream', with its riff borrowed from the FruityLoops demo song, that actually sounds borrowed from the X-Files theme, and 'Nightshade' with its three note riff, just do nothing but annoy me. The latter benefits from the presence of a <em>real drummer</em>, who gives it a bit more of "snap". But other than that? Just nothing. And 'Romance' is... <em>Ok, dear God, 'Romance' is atrocious</em>. You can do it yourself, in your own home, if you've got FruityLoops: just assemble the most generic rhythm and synth tones from the most generic Ibiza dance tune ever, and play the gorgeous <em>Jeux Interdits</em> over it. What do you get? Yes, that's right, a joke - that is, if you have any sense of humour. If you don't, you get 'Romance'. And if that's not enough, you've got the slow, "menacing" 'Resolution', a melody-less pile of synthesizer and guitar loops, useless synth vocals and an <em>amazingly terrible</em> synth vocalist wailing and shrieking and yelling like she was a cross between Clare Torry, a constipated chicken and a very, very bad Japanese anim&eacute; character being raped by tentacles. There are no words to describe this.</p>

<p>To be honest, there's only one track here that I like, and it's 'Ringscape'. And it's only really good because it's based on the beautiful 'Snow Cavern Flight' theme from <em>Tr3s Lunas</em>. And in fact, this track could be developed even further. As it is, it's a quite good rendition, and possibly the only thin in this CD that I'd want to listen to repeatedly. The other two, while they're by no means bad, are just... blah. 'Surfing' is the "pop song" of the album, a slow groove with the deranged, robotic Cher voices I mentioned before. The chorus melody is fairly catchy, and while the lyrics don't talk about Surfing on the ocean, they seem to refer to the Internet. Not that they're any remarkable - the only remarkable thing is the guitar solo. The song bursts into a loud outbreak of No Dream-esque guitars for a short while. It's cool, but way too short to justify the entire song. And 'Tears Of An Angel' kicks off with a fast, dramatic symphony of synthesized strings, only to fall back into the generic electro-groove rhythm with an unimpressive guitar melody and the Vocaloid singing some more stuff. I <em>could</em> take the song as moderately fresh, if I hadn't read a review where the writer mentioned the song's similarity to Bruce Springsteen's 'Streets Of Philadelphia'. And, honestly, the song is just too pale and lame to justify a title as dramatic as that. I don't get it.</p>

<p>I can easily reduce this album to a single CD, and I probably wouldn't even fill up half of it. And to be very honest, I'm still undecided on the rating. There are the two sides, you know: overall, I enjoy this album more than I expected to, and it's <em>good</em>, considering the circurmstances. But on the other side, there's too little <em>good</em> material, considering the length and the number of tracks, and the production and instrumentation just annoys me too much. The synthetic singing just harms the album, and next time, Mike can send them to Hell. If he doesn't want to work with other human beings, better leave his music instrumental, then. And I'm not even annoyed by the lack of guitars - actually, I'm getting quite tired of Mike's repetitive guitar style. There's just a lot of things to consider, and it's quite hard to give a definitive, overall rating. The most reasonable thing to do would be to give it an average rating, but... in the end, I think the positive aspects of the album outweigh the bad ones. Believe it or not, I really like those <strong>Light</strong> songs quite a lot. And an album comprised of the six best songs in that CD plus 'Ringscape' would deserve quite an 11. So there you go.</p>

<p>Man, 'Romance' blows, though!!</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>11/15</strong></big> - I should make an average between the two CDs, but I'm feeling generous.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>8/15</strong></big>  - So synthetic! Beautiful at times, though.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>7/15</strong></big>  - Bits of freshness immersed in a sea of genericism... Eh.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Yeah, Yeah, there is good stuff.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Uh... help me out, here.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/09.png" alt="9" />
</p>

<p>Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me now</a>!</p>

<hr />

<p><a href="index.htm">Back to the Reviews Page index</a></p>

<p>
  <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
      src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10"
      alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="31" width="88" /></a>
</p>

</body>

</html>